9 ms·

> The whole phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is precisely against equality - it recognizes that people have different

> The whole phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is precisely against equality - it recognizes that people have different abilities, talents, capabilities, and things happening in the course of life, and it recognizes that people have different needs, wishes, and desires. This is not the kind of equality the poster was talking about. Forcing equality at government level does not mean forcing everyone to have equal IQ and work ethic. It means ignoring those differences and forcing everyone to get the same benefit in life even though some are less productive than others ("to each according to his need"). "Equality of outcomes" as another poster put it.

collyw 6y ago
Someone is going to need to decide needs and abilities in that example, no? Would that not fall onto government in a communist state?
- chii 6y ago
  > Would that not fall onto government in a communist state? and this is why communism fails, because an external entity cannot possibly know the true needs of the individual, and cannot act in the best interest of every individual. Unless somehow they are a benevolent god.
  - claudiawerner 6y ago
    Nowhere does Marx or any other 'communist' author claim that the state knows or pretends to know the needs and desires of the populace, or even an aggregation of their individual abilities. In fact, later 'communist' authors specifically say that it's up to the individual to sort out their needs and abilities, and to cultivate them.
    - collyw 6y ago
      Then you get back to the problem that I presented - who decides the needs and abilities? At least with a free market we can be honest about trying to do as little as possible in return for as much as possible, and let the market decide what your abilities are worth.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>It means ignoring those differences and forcing everyone to get the same benefit in life even though some are less productive than others ("to each according to his need"). I'm not convinced. The slogan specifically recognises differences in needs, and therefore differences in 'income' under a socialist system. This is concordant with Marx's other writing on the matter. It means that in terms of what people need, they'll have access to it. But people have different needs. How can the 'outcomes' possibly be equal if the outcomes are a result of concrete, different needs and life situations? The outcome of a mother of three being given what they need is different from the outcome of a single civil engineer. Both the inputs (based on what they need) and the outputs (the outcomes) vary between each person. Further, in every society as Marx notes, there is some amount of surplus. If everyone's needs are covered, Marx argued for an allocation based on contribution, at least in the lower phase of Communism (sometimes called socialism). Let's go into what Marx actually said: >Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. [0] So it seems that Marx proposes a system, his 'lower phase of Communism', which Lenin took to mean 'socialism' - in which people get out what they put in, accounting for deductions (which Marx enumerates as deductions for health care, education, care for those who cannot work, provisions in the case of disaster, and expansion of production). In what possible way does "everyone get the same outcome" here? More, >Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. Does this sound like 'equality of outcome'? [0] Karl Marx - Critique of the Gotha Program (Part I, 1875).
- pandaman 6y ago

collyw 6y ago

Someone is going to need to decide needs and abilities in that example, no? Would that not fall onto government in a communist state?

chii 6y ago
> Would that not fall onto government in a communist state? and this is why communism fails, because an external entity cannot possibly know the true needs of the individual, and cannot act in the best interest of every individual. Unless somehow they are a benevolent god.
- claudiawerner 6y ago
  Nowhere does Marx or any other 'communist' author claim that the state knows or pretends to know the needs and desires of the populace, or even an aggregation of their individual abilities. In fact, later 'communist' authors specifically say that it's up to the individual to sort out their needs and abilities, and to cultivate them.
  - collyw 6y ago
    Then you get back to the problem that I presented - who decides the needs and abilities? At least with a free market we can be honest about trying to do as little as possible in return for as much as possible, and let the market decide what your abilities are worth.

claudiawerner 6y ago

>It means ignoring those differences and forcing everyone to get the same benefit in life even though some are less productive than others ("to each according to his need"). I'm not convinced. The slogan specifically recognises differences in needs, and therefore differences in 'income' under a socialist system. This is concordant with Marx's other writing on the matter. It means that in terms of what people need, they'll have access to it. But people have different needs. How can the 'outcomes' possibly be equal if the outcomes are a result of concrete, different needs and life situations? The outcome of a mother of three being given what they need is different from the outcome of a single civil engineer. Both the inputs (based on what they need) and the outputs (the outcomes) vary between each person. Further, in every society as Marx notes, there is some amount of surplus. If everyone's needs are covered, Marx argued for an allocation based on contribution, at least in the lower phase of Communism (sometimes called socialism). Let's go into what Marx actually said: >Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another. [0] So it seems that Marx proposes a system, his 'lower phase of Communism', which Lenin took to mean 'socialism' - in which people get out what they put in, accounting for deductions (which Marx enumerates as deductions for health care, education, care for those who cannot work, provisions in the case of disaster, and expansion of production). In what possible way does "everyone get the same outcome" here? More, >Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. Does this sound like 'equality of outcome'? [0] Karl Marx - Critique of the Gotha Program (Part I, 1875).

pandaman 6y ago