To each according to his need

[Gleb]

Post-capitalist society is usually divided to two different parts, as all of us know: socialism and its extension, communism. These two social models have major differences when it comes incentives of wage policies; during socialism, goods are distributed through principle "to each according to his contribution" and during the communist phase of society "to each according to his need".

According to Marx latter is supposed to happen when proletarian state disappears, but I've always been rather suspicious towards it. I'm not a left-winger of very educated kind (I mean, when it comes to leftist theory not education*per se) and I've always found system where a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form to be more effective as it gives necessary incentives to the workers: more you work, more fruits of work you have to enjoy.
Call me revisionist or whatever, but I, unlike e.g. Marx, find it to be a rather fair deal and in perfect harmony with our goals when we ensure that everyone's needs are fulfilled even when they are not "deserved" through contribution to the society.

More important than creating absolute equility in my opinion is to create equal opportunities and reward people from actually their own hard work and abolish the parasite upper class that is major obstacle to this kind of social model as they are sucking away goods produced by a worker from worker of the very same worker.

This is why I came here to ask; where do you see the injustice in principle of "to each according to his contribution" and how do you believe communist economy would be incentive enough while rewards are not dependant on amount of contribution to the society? I'm rather suspicious towards all this smudge and while I don't believe in "the human nature" I acknowledge that there are plenty of people not really willing to contribute to the society according to their abilities when it has no kind of effect to amount of goods one gains.

[Omi]

How do you plan to compare the work of an artist with the work of a worker in a bike factory?
How do you plan to compare the work of a succesfull musician entertaining a huge crowd with the work of the people at the sounboard/lights/stage building process, etc.

Get my point? Every one does his share, it is not fair to state that one does more or better work than another and so will be rewarded with more commodity's.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is why I came here to ask; where do you see the injustice in principle of "to each according to his contribution" and how do you believe communist economy would be incentive enough while rewards are not dependant on amount of contribution to the society?
Communist society aims to get rid of "to each according to his contribution" not because it is unjust, but because it will no longer be necessary. The idea behind communism is to get to a stage of technological development where the vast majority of goods and services - everything except some rare luxuries - can be produced cheaply in large enough quantities to satisfy just about everyone. Basically, the point is to get to a stage where we produce so much stuff that we can give it away for free.

As for the incentive to work, that is achieved through the abolition of the difference between work and play. Simply put, during the socialist period, we should aim to slowly eliminate all undesirable jobs (by replacing people with machinery in those jobs), until all the jobs left are fun - maybe not fun to everyone, but at least fun to some people (for example, computer programming is fun to some people; washing dishes isn't fun to anyone).

Once those two conditions are achieved - once socialism has reached a point where (a) we're producing so much stuff that we can give most of it away for free, and (b) all the available jobs are considered fun by the people who work in them - then socialism has ended and communism has begun.

[revolution inaction]

This is why I came here to ask; where do you see the injustice in principle of "to each according to his contribution" and how do you believe communist economy would be incentive enough while rewards are not dependant on amount of contribution to the society? I'm rather suspicious towards all this smudge and while I don't believe in "the human nature" I acknowledge that there are plenty of people not really willing to contribute to the society according to their abilities when it has no kind of effect to amount of goods one gains.

If some one can work it would affect the amount of goods they gain, the phrase is "from each according to ability, to each according to need" so if the first part is not met then the second part will not be either.

[revolution inaction]

Communist society aims to get rid of "to each according to his contribution" not because it is unjust, but because it will no longer be necessary. The idea behind communism is to get to a stage of technological development where the vast majority of goods and services - everything except some rare luxuries - can be produced cheaply in large enough quantities to satisfy just about everyone. Basically, the point is to get to a stage where we produce so much stuff that we can give it away for free.

As for the incentive to work, that is achieved through the abolition of the difference between work and play. Simply put, during the socialist period, we should aim to slowly eliminate all undesirable jobs (by replacing people with machinery in those jobs), until all the jobs left are fun - maybe not fun to everyone, but at least fun to some people (for example, computer programming is fun to some people; washing dishes isn't fun to anyone).

Once those two conditions are achieved - once socialism has reached a point where (a) we're producing so much stuff that we can give most of it away for free, and (b) all the available jobs are considered fun by the people who work in them - then socialism has ended and communism has begun.

I disagree, some jobs will never be fun, but they need doing some we can rotate who does them, so every one does some of the shit work but no one only does shit work.
I don't see how abundance is necessary for communism either, for some things there will never be abundance but we can ration things if the demand is greater than the supply. I fall to see how money would deal with this any better, as far as I can see it does a far worse job of it. Though I think most things would be more abundant in a communist society.

[Gleb]

How do you plan to compare the work of an artist with the work of a worker in a bike factory?
How do you plan to compare the work of a succesfull musician entertaining a huge crowd with the work of the people at the sounboard/lights/stage building process, etc.

Get my point? Every one does his share, it is not fair to state that one does more or better work than another and so will be rewarded with more commodity's.

Well, let's ask a question: who decides the wage? Yeah, employers do - in this case, the 'employers' happen to be 'employees' of their own 'employees' - fellow workers -, too, though.
Is it fair that someone working longer days and doing clearly more demanding job gets same, or even smaller amount of goods than someone who isn't really on a mood o' contribution? You know, how much you contribute really doesn't always tell how much you can contribute if you wanted to, while the rotation system you suggested really sounds like an interesting solution to the problem.

Radical Graffiti: One who shall not work, shall not eat, was that what you meant? But yeah, I agree on you on your corrections to arguments presdented by comrade Haderach; some jobs simply won't be fun and all shitty jobs (there's lots of 'em) just can't be replaced with machinery.

[FreeFocus]

There is no injustice in "each according to his contribution," unless the handicapped, children, and the elderly were not taken care of because of their inability to work. If someone doesn't work, others should not have to carry them. I believe in this principle firmly, even if many on RevLeft don't. The left should not discount individual responsibility. (don't conflate what I just said with BS that right-wingers say today about the poor. It's not like that; I'm talking about in a post-capitalist society that employs, perhaps, anarcho-syndicalism)

You also can't view work through such a parochial lens. A lot of boring, mundane jobs do help build character and teach us lessons. You have to account for the human factor.

[revolution inaction]

Well, let's ask a question: who decides the wage? Yeah, employers do - in this case, the 'employers' happen to be 'employees' of their own 'employees' - fellow workers -, too, though.
Is it fair that someone working longer days and doing clearly more demanding job gets same, or even smaller amount of goods than someone who isn't really on a mood o' contribution? You know, how much you contribute really doesn't always tell how much you can contribute if you wanted to, while the rotation system you suggested really sounds like an interesting solution to the problem.

I think it would be a lot easier to determine if someone is working a reasonable amount than to calculate exactly how much they are working, and how much that is worth.
I think that most people world do about the same amount of work given the opportunity to chose, so under any "you receive according to you contribution" scheme they would get vary nearly the same income, but the work of calculating it would be much greeter than in a communist system.
I also don't think everyone would be expected to do the absolute maximum work they could in a communist system, I expect there would be plenty of free time, so for most people how much they can contribute shouldn't come up.



Radical Graffiti: One who shall not work, shall not eat, was that what you meant?

Kind of, but I wouldn't object to them being put on absolute minimum rations, it wouldn't cost much and then they could change they mind anytime, I'd rather not have people starve to death, though the prospect would certainly motivate them to work :)

[Gleb]

I think it would be a lot easier to determine if someone is working a reasonable amount than to calculate exactly how much they are working, and how much that is worth.

That's at least partially true and I believe it's a useful principle when it comes to most jobs, but there still are some difficult ones, especially among jobs that need long education. I mean, most doctors probably won't be very keen on the fact that they have been studying for the last twenty years of their lives and people's lives are depending on their personal actions and decisions while janitor with no education and no responsibility is rewarded with same amount of goods. That's not exactly my view of fair and just distribution of resources!

But here again we run to the same old question, how we decide which job is demanding and difficult enough?


I think that most people world do about the same amount of work given the opportunity to chose, so under any "you receive according to you contribution" scheme they would get vary nearly the same income, but the work of calculating it would be much greeter than in a communist system.
I also don't think everyone would be expected to do the absolute maximum work they could in a communist system, I expect there would be plenty of free time, so for most people how much they can contribute shouldn't come up.

Sure, the old socialist saying from early 20th century fits well; 8 hours a day for work, 8 hours a day for sleep and 8 hours a day for leisure. Most (not all) people would probably usually (not always) organize their daily rhythm like this, but when principle of "from each according to one's abilities and to each according to his need" is followed, this shouldn't have any kind of effect - my needs really won't be affected - I work 10 hours on Thursday and 6 on Friday, but I get same amount of goods from both days. Heck, that's supposed to be fair?



Kind of, but I wouldn't object to them being put on absolute minimum rations, it wouldn't cost much and then they could change they mind anytime, I'd rather not have people starve to death, though the prospect would certainly motivate them to work :)

Yeah, I got that; of course people are not being starved to death even if they don't work, but that's a common aphorism and I believe you know I didn't mean it exactly like that.

[ZakeD]

People aren't equal in their abilities and talents. Do you deserve to have more of your needs fulfilled just because you're young and have more energy, and it requires less effort for you to work 10 hours? What about someone who isn't as able-bodied and working eight hours would be a lot harder to them than it would be for the younger person to work for ten? Do they deserve less for working 8 hours even though they put in a lot more effort to do so? From each according to his abilitiy is fairer in my opinion because you get what you need even if you aren't as capable as others. We all know that not all people are capable of the same amount of work as others are, so I think it's fair to say that it doesn't mean they deserve less if they are giving it the same amount of effort that everyone else does. That's how I see it at least.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

some jobs simply won't be fun and all shitty jobs (there's lots of 'em) just can't be replaced with machinery.Yet.

Most likely with our current technology being incapable of providing truly abundant conditions in every "market," disparity based on effort and job conditions will continue to persist for better utilization - housing, for example. How much of this is a fault of capitalist production we will find out.

I think all socialists should stay committed to research in labor-saving technology like automation. Most of the effort and funds currently wasted on the military and producing drugs people don't need should be diverted to technologies that can free up the more strenuous tasks, like mining. Already there is talk about promoting a remote mining machine, but mining companies exploit the third world for short and medium-term gain.

If the workers are in charge of monetary reward, I don't see why they can't settle income disputes. As automation makes the differences between jobs less noticeable, workers will be more inclined to slash the disparity. I think there will be a point where we can safely remove all monetary rewards and destroy the notion of "work," but it's not foreseeable right now - especially when market forces are pushing tasks onto the third world and not investing into automation.

[Sendo]

Quoted: "shitty jobs"

Does this mean shitty careers or shitty tasks?
In a post-capitalist society we could be like scouts on a camping trip and just divide the dirty jobs and have everyone participate in them on a rotating basis. We need more of people learning practical skills in all categories. Specialization of labor and gender roles and roles in the family have made so many young Americans (that's mostly all I know) incapable of doing the simplest of household tasks like cleaning dishes, washing clothes, repairing tears in clothes or "husbandry" tasks like raking, repairing wooden furniture, using tools, etc.

Chomsky talks about division of unwanted jobs in post-capitalist society masterfully.

[Concept]

That's at least partially true and I believe it's a useful principle when it comes to most jobs, but there still are some difficult ones, especially among jobs that need long education. I mean, most doctors probably won't be very keen on the fact that they have been studying for the last twenty years of their lives and people's lives are depending on their personal actions and decisions while janitor with no education and no responsibility is rewarded with same amount of goods. That's not exactly my view of fair and just distribution of resources!

and this is why we need to get rid of money...do a job because you enjoy it
could we potentially lose our intellectuals in socialism or communism, since most of them seem to do their jobs solely for the money??

each according to their ability is definitely the best suited...some people just can't do some things and they should not be punished for it

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Quoted: "shitty jobs"

Does this mean shitty careers or shitty tasks?
In a post-capitalist society we could be like scouts on a camping trip and just divide the dirty jobs and have everyone participate in them on a rotating basis. We need more of people learning practical skills in all categories. Specialization of labor and gender roles and roles in the family have made so many young Americans (that's mostly all I know) incapable of doing the simplest of household tasks like cleaning dishes, washing clothes, repairing tears in clothes or "husbandry" tasks like raking, repairing wooden furniture, using tools, etc.

Chomsky talks about division of unwanted jobs in post-capitalist society masterfully.

I don't see people becoming class conscious if the alternative we provide requires everyone switching up shitty tasks. Obviously in some workplaces this isn't a problem (and indeed smaller retailers will oftentimes use current employees for janitor work), but "become a trash worker for one day!" is both unappealing and economically disadvantageous.

Relying on technology isn't necessarily a bad thing. Yes, we lose sight of what got us here, but let's live with the knowledge that we're doing activities that our grandfathers could never handle. Look at the older generations and their relationship with computers.

Post-capitalism should be concerned with eliminating these tasks, not rotating them. We do have the brain power and materials needed to eliminate most tasks that people aren't inclined to perform. Jobs which people naturally flock to - teaching, writing, engineering, designing, programming - we don't have to worry about.