3 ms·

"Spreading the work as evenly as possible" is not communist ethos (likewise, evenly distribution of wealth is also not communist ethos). "From each according to

by NhanH 12y ago

"Spreading the work as evenly as possible" is not communist ethos (likewise, evenly distribution of wealth is also not communist ethos). "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is the classic Marxism principle (it's the same for any other communism - they differ in the method to get there, not the principle). There are a lot of problem in practice with trying to evenly distribute the work. And they're mostly the same reasons why we have to rely on free market to distribute the majority of wealth: the centralization and power issue, the inefficient issue, identity issue when your worth is tied to the minimum work you need to do (granted this is already a problem nowadays). And to determine a minimum fair share of work means to determine the minimum total work that a society needs to do, which is equivalent to determine the minimum amount of wealth to be produced. Ask 10 people and you will have 20 different answers on what is the "minimum living standard should be". Also, it stops (or drastically slow down) society from technological progressing. Whether it's a good or bad thing is up for interpretation.

danbruc 12y ago
I am not sure if and where I disagree with you or if I just misunderstand you. I don't see the distinction you are drawing between "Spreading the work as evenly as possible" and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". But I also don't think that this is the heart of Marxism but it is about getting rid of the possibility to exploit workers by the possession of the means of production by a small elite. Likewise I don't see that Marxism necessarily implies some kind of centralization or inefficiency, i.e. I don't think there is a contradiction between free or partially regulated markets and Marxism, they look almost orthogonal to me.
- NhanH 12y ago
  Everything you said is correct! There was just a few details I didn't have in my post that make it slightly confusing. "Spreading the work as evenly as possible" and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" differs because people's ability is different, and because the work itself is not interchangeable (specialization and what not). This is more of a technicality than anything else, because the former might imply that everyone has to be doing similar work (in term of wealth producing efficiency, time working etc). Getting rid of the possibility to exploit workers by the possession of the means of production by a small elite is definitely the overarching motivation for communism. I can't remember it right now, but I think there is a line of practical reasoning that leads to the principle mentioned (which is to says that for practical purpose, one will lead to another). I will have to look it up. Marxism (at least the motivation and principle mentioned above) by itself definitely doesn't implies centralization! It's unfortunately that this the insight is often missed by people. However, according to Marx, to get to communism, we have to transition through socialism first, which is the abolish of private ownership for major means of production (in Socialism society, means of production is owned by public enterprise, as opposed to being held in common in Communism society). This step poses a centralization issue (as the power that be won't relinquish their power), and inefficiency is just a byproduct of centralization (because of corruption and lack of creative destruction, mostly). We have not found a way to transition directly to communism from a capitalism society (assuming that communism is desirable).

by NhanH 12y ago

danbruc 12y ago

I am not sure if and where I disagree with you or if I just misunderstand you. I don't see the distinction you are drawing between "Spreading the work as evenly as possible" and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". But I also don't think that this is the heart of Marxism but it is about getting rid of the possibility to exploit workers by the possession of the means of production by a small elite. Likewise I don't see that Marxism necessarily implies some kind of centralization or inefficiency, i.e. I don't think there is a contradiction between free or partially regulated markets and Marxism, they look almost orthogonal to me.

NhanH 12y ago
Everything you said is correct! There was just a few details I didn't have in my post that make it slightly confusing. "Spreading the work as evenly as possible" and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" differs because people's ability is different, and because the work itself is not interchangeable (specialization and what not). This is more of a technicality than anything else, because the former might imply that everyone has to be doing similar work (in term of wealth producing efficiency, time working etc). Getting rid of the possibility to exploit workers by the possession of the means of production by a small elite is definitely the overarching motivation for communism. I can't remember it right now, but I think there is a line of practical reasoning that leads to the principle mentioned (which is to says that for practical purpose, one will lead to another). I will have to look it up. Marxism (at least the motivation and principle mentioned above) by itself definitely doesn't implies centralization! It's unfortunately that this the insight is often missed by people. However, according to Marx, to get to communism, we have to transition through socialism first, which is the abolish of private ownership for major means of production (in Socialism society, means of production is owned by public enterprise, as opposed to being held in common in Communism society). This step poses a centralization issue (as the power that be won't relinquish their power), and inefficiency is just a byproduct of centralization (because of corruption and lack of creative destruction, mostly). We have not found a way to transition directly to communism from a capitalism society (assuming that communism is desirable).