"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need"

[Ratatosk]

How is this a reasonable principle to base a society on? If you support this principle, why?

Honestly, I don't understand. Why would you want to live in such a society? What advantages does it have? Is it freer or fairer than a socialist society (reward according to some combination of work/effort)? If so, in what sense?

Let's say I want to work less and maintain a more frugal lifestyle, while my friend wants to work hard in order to be able to save up for a trip around the world or whatever. Why on Earth should this not be allowed? And if it is, why on Earth should the two of us get the same reward? Honestly, it sounds like a terrible principle.

Come to think of it, what does it actually mean? Does "to each according to their need" mean that I am only allowed to have what I need, or does "according to my need" mean "according to what I want", or does it mean "everyone should be able to cover their genuine needs", which is a fairly uncontroversial principle among leftists and not something specific to communism? Does "from each according to their ability" mean that I'm not allowed to work less hard than I could if I was putting all my effort into my work? If not, what else does it mean?

[ernie]

Honestly, I don't understand. Why would you want to live in such a society? What advantages does it have? Is it freer or fairer than a socialist society (reward according to some combination of work/effort)? If so, in what sense?
I don't know if a society based on that principle (a communist society) is "fairer" than a socialist one; it's certainly more free. Any society where we're forced to work to feed ourselves is not free.


Let's say I want to work less and maintain a more frugal lifestyle, while my friend wants to work hard in order to be able to save up for a trip around the world or whatever. Why on Earth should this not be allowed? And if it is, why on Earth should the two of us get the same reward? Honestly, it sounds like a terrible principle.
In a communist society, you wouldn't need to save up for a trip around the world. The airline workers could organize flights to other places and you would only need to hop on a plane and go.

In general, most goods would be freely available to everybody, regardless of whether you work or not. Why is this a bad idea? If your material needs are met, then why do you care if someone else spends their time playing video games or smoking weed? In a communist society, you work because you like your work, not because you need to survive.


Come to think of it, what does it actually mean? Does "to each according to their need" mean that I am only allowed to have what I need, or does "according to my need" mean "according to what I want", or does it mean "everyone should be able to cover their genuine needs", which is a fairly uncontroversial principle among leftists and not something specific to communism?
I think it means that, whenever possible, all goods will be freely available to everybody. If there are shortages of certain products, then some sort of rationing solution will have to be implemented.


Does "from each according to their ability" mean that I'm not allowed to work less hard than I could if I was putting all my effort into my work? If not, what else does it mean?
It means that you contribute to society what and how you can. If you want to be a doctor, then you would study hard for years and, if you passed some tests, you would become a doctor. That is how you serve society. If you want to be a carpenter, then that's how you would contribute. If you, for whatever reason, aren't able to contribute to society, then you don't. In all three cases, your material needs would be met by society.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm with Marx on this one:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Of course, most advocates of an instant gift economy believe that the community must pressure people to work, and prevent people from consuming if they refuse to work without a valid reason. Otherwise, you get free riders, and we're revolting to get rid of parasites, not to make new ones.
Also, can we please stop using 'communism' and 'socialism' to describe different things? Marx's 'lower phase' of communist society used labour vouchers (now 'labour credits', probably). Marx and Engels used the two terms to mean the exact same thing so it's somewhat redundant. Presumably the other libertarian socialists use it in the same way.

[F9]

Oh men you are making the simplest ever thing, into a very complicate.You dont need to put all your mind in it, just see it with your eyes and you will understand, deep thinking probably dont helps!



How is this a reasonable principle to base a society on? If you support this principle, why?The fairest principle, the clearest and the adjustable!Why its not a reasonable?Do you want to work or not , and still dont getting what you need?



Honestly, I don't understand. Why would you want to live in such a society? What advantages does it have? Is it freer or fairer than a socialist society (reward according to some combination of work/effort)? If so, in what sense?For why see above.Freest fairest ,why?Because you can do what you want and always have what you need!You live with others as a "team" you contribute each other so all have everything!If you dont contribute thats your problem, community will give you to eat, a roof to stay etc!


Let's say I want to work less and maintain a more frugal lifestyle, while my friend wants to work hard in order to be able to save up for a trip around the world or whatever. Why on Earth should this not be allowed? And if it is, why on Earth should the two of us get the same reward? Honestly, it sounds like a terrible principle.Save up for a world trip?Save what?Rice?:w00t: He can d his trip with no savings,remember communism=not money, not property, not savings....!Who tell that this is not allowed?Everyone can work as hard or light he wants and move whenever he wants!Reward?Who talk about rewards?We are talking about needs!


Come to think of it, what does it actually mean? Does "to each according to their need" mean that I am only allowed to have what I need, or does "according to my need" mean "according to what I want", or does it mean "everyone should be able to cover their genuine needs", which is a fairly uncontroversial principle among leftists and not something specific to communism?What you want?Dont you want your needs?Arent those really the same thing?Think of it, what you want is your needs!


Does "from each according to their ability" mean that I'm not allowed to work less hard than I could if I was putting all my effort into my work? If not, what else does it mean?

You can work as hard you want or dont work.

Hope i helped!

Fuserg9:star:

[Vanguard1917]

As ernie emphasises, the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' presupposes that material scarcity has been overcome (through progress in economic production) so that each individual can give to and take from society, according to his abilities and needs, without the need for any special instrument of regulation of individuals' consumption.

[apathy maybe]

As ernie emphasises, the principle of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' presupposes that material scarcity has been overcome (through progress in economic production) so that each individual can give to and take from society, according to his abilities and needs, without the need for any special instrument of regulation of individuals' consumption.

This is an interesting position. Surely if material scarcity has been over come the maxim would be,
"from each according to what they like, to each what they want".

Because if material scarcity has been over come to such an extent, it doesn't matter how much (or little) a person does, it will not affect production (even if no body works). And similarly, it doesn't matter what they use, it will not dent the surplus available for others to use.

-----

My position on the maxim "from each, to each" is that it isn't the only possible basis for a communist society, and is a down right dangerous (at least to anarchism) maxim unless interpreted in a certain way.

How should it be interpreted? The "ability" in "From each according to their ability" should be interpreted as "desire" as much as physical capability.

I could go on, but I can't be bothered.

[ernie]

Because if material scarcity has been over come to such an extent, it doesn't matter how much (or little) a person does, it will not affect production (even if no body works). And similarly, it doesn't matter what they use, it will not dent the surplus available for others to use.
I don't know if we can ever reach that level of productivity (we might), but at least the basic necessities ought to exist in abundance. I don't see how communism can be possible otherwise. With scarcity comes the material incentive to live off the labor of others, and we can't have that.


My position on the maxim "from each, to each" is that it isn't the only possible basis for a communist society, and is a down right dangerous (at least to anarchism) maxim unless interpreted in a certain way.

How should it be interpreted? The "ability" in "From each according to their ability" should be interpreted as "desire" as much as physical capability.

I could go on, but I can't be bothered.
Maybe you should, as I don't think what you mean here is very clear.

[JimmyJazz]

The "from each according to his ability" part I have never liked, it sounds like compulsory labor. If the goal was to say that all who want work will have it, surely it could have been phrased better?

Likewise, the Manifesto calls for "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture." Yikes. :bored: Regardless of what was meant, it is, at the very least, another example of poor phrasing.

"To each according to their need" obviously has its place (social welfare programs like universal free healthcare), but I have never thought that it could be the sole maxim to guide distribution of goods and services.

[GPDP]

"To each according to their need" obviously has its place (social welfare programs like universal free healthcare), but I have never thought that it could be the sole maxim to guide distribution of goods and services.

I have some doubts on this myself.

We're not the only ones, either. Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, for example, call for the distribution of goods and services to be based on sacrifice and onerousness of labor, while still providing according to basic needs for those that cannot or will not work. They see this as the fairest of all maxims, for it doesn't allow differences in talent, genetic make-up, or just plain luck to give some people more material rewards than they deserve over others that worked just as hard as they did. Calculating this "sacrifice", however, is another matter.

If anything, I would say the interpretation of "according to need" as taking what you want when you want might be too far into the future to implement readily as of now. Perhaps something like Albert and Hahnel's maxim would serve as a nice transition, though.

[ZeroNowhere]

The "from each according to his ability" part I have never liked, it sounds like compulsory labor. If the goal was to say that all who want work will have it, surely it could have been phrased better?
It's actually a quote from Louis Blanc (not exact, but that's pretty much it). The point of Marx's statement was that it could only happen after scarcity has been eliminated, and labour is "not only a means of living, but life's prime want", that is, after all of the uninteresting jobs have been mechanized, leaving only jobs that people are interested in. So basically, people will work to the best of their ability because the only work now would be creative and pleasurable, and thus they will strive to improve their ability. Also, I get the feeling that 'needs' here is used in a looser sense, rather than simply in the sense that you need water.

[black magick hustla]

I do not like that quote. I think it makes socialism look more like charity than what it is - the domination of a class over the other.

[ZeroNowhere]

In socialism, there are no classes.

[ernie]

If anything, I would say the interpretation of "according to need" as taking what you want when you want might be too far into the future to implement readily as of now.
Why do you think this? Do you believe this is true even of basic necessities (food, clothing, basic tools, etc)?

[JimmyJazz]

The point of Marx's statement was that it could only happen after scarcity has been eliminated, and labour is "not only a means of living, but life's prime want", that is, after all of the uninteresting jobs have been mechanized, leaving only jobs that people are interested in.

Yeah, but this business about eliminating scarcity is a bit dubious. It could be done for basic necessities, of course; but as far as luxuries, well, people will always invent new ones, which will then be scarce.

Also, the idea of pushing production to the heights probably envisioned by Marx is not compatible with our current knowledge about the fragility of the environment. The earth is already working at (or past) max capacity in some respects--e.g., oil consumption--and we do need to consider the fact that a global redistribution of wealth is needed alongside of a simple push for greater development everywhere. Western lifestyles do need to come down, almost certainly, for worldwide equality to be possible.


I do not like that quote. I think it makes socialism look more like charity than what it is - the domination of a class over the other.

Exactly. Although, isn't the quote technically about communism?

[Vanguard1917]

I do not like that quote. I think it makes socialism look more like charity than what it is - the domination of a class over the other.

The quote refers to communism, not to the transitional historical stage between capitalism and communism, commonly referred to as socialism by Marxists, i.e. the lower phase of communism. Lenin emphasised the point that, under socialism, where classes and material scarcity continue to exist, society will work according to the "principle" from each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.

Under communism, the class domination you speak of does not exist and neither do classes.

[GPDP]

Why do you think this? Do you believe this is true even of basic necessities (food, clothing, basic tools, etc)?

No. What I am thinking is that, while we are still in a period of scarcity, it is not possible to simply get whatever material item you want at whatever time. So in my opinion, an interpretation of "need" should only apply to the basic necessities of life, such as those you outlined. For luxuries and commodities, however, until scarcity has been overcome, some other maxim should apply, but it need not be the capitalist maxim. We can do with something much more fair and egalitarian, while stopping just short of making anything and everything available for anyone and everyone, until the conditions allow for it. And of course, all the while we should strive to reach those conditions.

[ZeroNowhere]

The quote refers to communism, not to the transitional historical stage between capitalism and communism, commonly referred to as socialism by Marxists, i.e. the lower phase of communism. Lenin emphasised the point that, under socialism, where classes and material scarcity continue to exist, society will work according to the "principle" from each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds.
Marx's 'lower phase of communism' was still classless, and still socialism/communism. Though yes, Marx did believe in labour vouchers.

[Vanguard1917]

Marx's 'lower phase of communism' was still classless

That's incorrect. See the Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm) and Lenin's explanation in chapter 5, section 3 of The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3).

[BobKKKindle$]

Marx's 'lower phase of communism' was still classless, and still socialism/communism

Both Lenin and Marx used the terms "lower phase of communism" and "socialism" interchangeably because they refer to the same stage of historical development, after the overthrow of capitalism, but before the transition to communism. This stage is characterized not only by wage differentials and the distribution of output according to how much work people do (due to the influence of the capitalist ideological superstructure despite the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production, which prevents the use of an egalitarian or needs-based system of distribution) but also by the presence of the state. The state is a direct product of class antagonisms and exists to secure the power of the ruling class against the threat of revolution (or, when capitalism has been overthrow, reaction from the remnants of the bourgeoisie and foreign imperialist powers) and once class antagonisms have been finally liquidated the state will begin to whither away and will eventually transform itself into an administrative apparatus with no political role.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's incorrect. See the Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm))

So how exactly is there class in that society?


Both Lenin and Marx used the terms "lower phase of communism" and "socialism" interchangeably because they refer to the same stage of historical development, after the overthrow of capitalism, but before the transition to communism.
The naming of the 'lower phase of communism' as 'socialism' began with Lenin, not Marx, who used 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably in general.

[Vanguard1917]

So how exactly is there class in that society?


The conditions for a classless society are not created overnight, as Marx explains. The existence of the workers' state is a product of that.



The naming of the 'lower phase of communism' as 'socialism' began with Lenin, not Marx, who used 'socialism' and 'communism' interchangeably in general.


That's true, but he did distinguish between a lower and higher phase of communist development. In the lower phase, the working class continues to exist as a class, albeit the ruling class. See his famous letter to Weydemeyer, for instance (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm).

[Pogue]

I too am slightly unclear on this, although I'm an Anarchist so I think we don't have the 'deeds' phase but go straight to 'needs'. Most non commie types can't grasp the needs bit because they say people'll rob and do no work, and most others don't get the deeds bit because they say theres experience and the fact that some work is harder than other work etc.