NationStates Jolt Archive

Marx said "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Most Marxists complain that corporations only pay workers barely what they need to survive. Which do Marxists prefer, that each person receives only her/his necessities or that each person recieves according to the value of her/his labor?

Marx said "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Most Marxists complain that corporations only pay workers barely what they need to survive. Which do Marxists prefer, that each person receives only her/his necessities or that each person recieves according to the value of her/his labor?

I want a free ride. Does that count?

I want a free ride. Does that count?

Here here! We ned a government system for lazyness......Apathocracy....Lazism

Here here! We ned a government system for lazyness......Apathocracy....Lazism

My first chance to hold high office...

My first chance to hold high office...
All you gotta do is run, then work up enough care to vote for yourself, no one else will vote. (b^_^)b

All you gotta do is run, then work up enough care to vote for yourself, no one else will vote. (b^_^)b

I'll vote, but i must be drunk first. And you must supply *of Course*

Kakistocracy it is.

We're way off topic. Could everyone hold off on the sarcasm for a little bit, please? (I know that'll take alot of effort, but try your best. ;) )

Oh yeah, sorry, save it for page 3 people! I don't know much about Marxism, only that Karl Marx is the basis for Old Major in Animal Farm. Or something like that.

Oh yeah, sorry, save it for page 3 people! I don't know much about Marxism, only that Karl Marx is the basis for Old Major in Animal Farm. Or something like that.

:D Well, I learned in my sociology class that "Marxism" as we know it is actually misinterpreted.. nothing like the original. I wonder how on target that is?

:D Well, I learned in my sociology class that "Marxism" as we know it is actually misinterpreted.. nothing like the original. I wonder how on target that is?
That's a good point. Communism has evolved significantly since Marx. Modern Communists tend to complain about overconsumption (sometimes) while Marx was more concerned with the poor not having enough to consume.

That's a good point. Communism has evolved significantly since Marx. Modern Communists tend to complain about overconsumption (sometimes) while Marx was more concerned with the poor not having enough to consume.

But the question is, *Do you believe that Communism is _actually_ the way to go?* Or are you asking that yourself? :p

How bout a communist society where anyone who doesn't want to contribute in an actually important/helpful way (art is counted as important, so no going "lazy artists doing nothing for the country") (same for a lot of businesses which society could technically go without) is eaten?

How bout a communist society where anyone who doesn't want to contribute in an actually important/helpful way (art is counted as important, so no going "lazy artists doing nothing for the country") (same for a lot of businesses which society could technically go without) is eaten?

But we taste bad....



>_> Or so I hear...

But we taste bad.... >_> Or so I hear...

"Long Pigs" .. If you eat pig, you may as well eat humans. (kinda)

But we taste bad....



>_> Or so I hear...


According to the HUFU people, human flesh is chewy-er, softer, and sweeter than cow flesh.


That doesn't seem all that bad to me :\

:D Well, I learned in my sociology class that "Marxism" as we know it is actually misinterpreted.. nothing like the original. I wonder how on target that is?

That's what the leftist fifth column behind out 'edukashun' system wants you to believe. Those who go along with it are 'useful idiots.'

How bout a communist society where anyone who doesn't want to contribute in an actually important/helpful way (art is counted as important, so no going "lazy artists doing nothing for the country") (same for a lot of businesses which society could technically go without) is eaten?
Yuo mean like Mangez-Faire communism. It works, but you gain like ten pounds.

But the question is, *Do you believe that Communism is _actually_ the way to go?* Or are you asking that yourself? :p
I guess I'm sort of asking the question as way of saying "Is this a logical inconsistancy in Communism?" I'd really like one of the Socialists/Communists on this forum to discuss their thoughts on the question.

That's what the leftist fifth column behind out 'edukashun' system wants you to believe. Those who go along with it are 'useful idiots.'

My sociology teacher wore sandals in 2-foot piles of snow. Does that fit with your theory? :p

Yuo mean like Mangez-Faire communism. It works, but you gain like ten pounds.

Damn Canadian French person. !

Marx said "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Most Marxists complain that corporations only pay workers barely what they need to survive. Which do Marxists prefer, that each person receives only her/his necessities or that each person recieves according to the value of her/his labor?

But the basic point is if everyone - including the "owners" of said corporation - were paid according to their "needs", then there would be a tremendous surplus of goods and wealth which would lead to a redefining of "needs" and a levelling of the basic playing field which everyone operates under.

or am i drunk?

My sociology teacher wore sandals in 2-foot piles of snow. Does that fit with your theory? :p

In my day, if someone pulled crap like that, they'd be made to stand outside until their toes got frostbitten. Thus serving as a warning to others about poor footware choices.

Standards are slipping.

But the basic point is if everyone - including the "owners" of said corporation - were paid according to their "needs", then there would be a tremendous surplus of goods and wealth which would lead to a redefining of "needs" and a levelling of the basic playing field which everyone operates under.

or am i drunk?
You my friend, are somewhere between "Hammered" and "Tanked"

I guess I'm sort of asking the question as way of saying "Is this a logical inconsistancy in Communism?" I'd really like one of the Socialists/Communists on this forum to discuss their thoughts on the question.
My first thought is that most socialists don't really care to be lumped together with communists.

My second thought is that the beginning assumption is invalid, at least apropos us socialists (can't really speak for the commies). We complain that corporations very often DO NOT pay workers what they need to survive, hence such ideas as a "living wage."

Marx said "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Most Marxists complain that corporations only pay workers barely what they need to survive. Which do Marxists prefer, that each person receives only her/his necessities or that each person recieves according to the value of her/his labor?

I haven't studied communism or Marx, but I hope you realize that your question is prefaced with misleading information and demands a false choice.

The misleading information: the statement about 'most Marxists' combined with the quote from Marx. When Marx made that statement, the point was very clearly that a great many people were not receiving according to their needs; the prospect of a utopian future without starvation and poverty was the fantasy he provided. At the time, there was no question about what to do with the excess - people just wanted enough to get by.

The false choice comes in the question: Modern Communists retain the 'need' quote and point out that even after everyone gets what they need, there would still be a large amount left over to distribute equitably, rather than the capitalist system which concentrates the same surplus (or more than just the surplus) in the hands of a relative few. This ignores the concept that a large concentrated pile of money can be more economically useful in some cases thana large diffuse pile of money - but I'm presenting the Communist side here, I think.

An oppositely-loaded question might be: Which do capitalists prefer, that everyone receives a fair share of national prosperity, or that their labor be usurped by a few powerful individuals to the point where survival is uncertain?

Damn Canadian French person. !
Blaiming your problems on the French, eh? That isnot very useful....

You my friend, are somewhere between "Hammered" and "Tanked"

Highly probably, i've drunk a bottle of white wine since i got back from the pub.

Marx said "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Most Marxists complain that corporations only pay workers barely what they need to survive. Which do Marxists prefer, that each person receives only her/his necessities or that each person recieves according to the value of her/his labor?

As someone else mentioned there is a huge problem seperating Marx's ideas from Marxist's ideas (if you catch my drift). Famously, apon hearing 'interpretations' of his work by other 'Marxists', Marx said "I am not a Marxist".

But the basic point is if everyone - including the "owners" of said corporation - were paid according to their "needs", then there would be a tremendous surplus of goods and wealth which would lead to a redefining of "needs" and a levelling of the basic playing field which everyone operates under.

or am i drunk?
Yes, it's definately true that owners as well as employers take much more than they "need." But the original question also suggests that it is logically flawed to complain that workers don't get paid what they are worth, while at the same time believing that people should only have what they need. If you really believe that, wouldn't you logically have to believe that workers are being paid what they ought to be paid (and perhaps more)? Secondly, I think our basic wants and needs remain the same even under a state of barely surviving. Our temporary priorities change, but the things we really want and need are entirely the same. Finally, why would you want to create that kind of surplus in the first place. At some point those goods have to be used by somebody, or the labor used to create them was a complete waste.

How about some Capalist Communist Hybrid? Why be 100% one or the Other?

How about perhaps some system of levels.

I.e. if you are a lazy lay about with no Job you are guarenteed a simple apartment in a block of houses somewhere, a roof, a bed, food, water, health care.
If you have a Job you autmatically qualify for a decent aparatment, a car, some luxiries etc.
Dependign on the skill level, work level, some kind of thing like that, you progress up the levels up to a fixed maximum.

Therefore making some sort of level where everyone gets what they need, food water, home. However people are also able to work towards what they 'need' (want) however no one will be able to sit in palace washing themselves with campagne and wiping their arse with $100 bills. :P

Giving those people who wish to think they are better than others the chance to work hard and be better off than others if they are good at it, so therefore encouraging the capatalist views of working hard getting lots of money, and the Marx view point of everyone getting what they need.

Perhaps just charge everyone 100% tax up to a certain pay level, anything they make over that is theirs, but until that point they are paying towards the things they get for free.

Alot of countries employ a measure of this (Although they are obviously more capatalist) by for example giving free health care to all (The NHS in the UK).

So just to re make my point how about a shift towrads communism without actually going the whole way or vice versa :)
Human beings being both competative and cooperative creatures by nature, dont over work on one side of our nature but find a balacne in between.
You shouldnt be too well rewarded for the work you do but there should be some reward :)

Jsut a view point that happens to be mine.

Yes, it's definately true that owners as well as employers take much more than they "need." But the original question also suggests that it is logically flawed to complain that workers don't get paid what they are worth, while at the same time believing that people should only have what they need. If you really believe that, wouldn't you logically have to believe that workers are being paid what they ought to be paid (and perhaps more)? Secondly, I think our basic wants and needs remain the same even under a state of barely surviving. Our temporary priorities change, but the things we really want and need are entirely the same. Finally, why would you want to create that kind of surplus in the first place. At some point those goods have to be used by somebody, or the labor used to create them was a complete waste.

You misunderstand, then. Survival is not the be-all and end-all of Marxism. A surplus remains a desireable thing; it wouldn't be wasted, but evenly distributed. The from-each/to-each statement sets minimums, not maximums. It operates under the premise that no one should be without sufficient resources to survive; any remaining resources should be equitably distributed and/or reinvested. If a worker is being paid less for his labor than he would receive if his minimal needs were met and then the total surplus evenly divided, then the Marxist position is that his fair share of the surplus is being usurped.

How bout a communist society where anyone who doesn't want to contribute in an actually important/helpful way (art is counted as important, so no going "lazy artists doing nothing for the country") (same for a lot of businesses which society could technically go without) is eaten?

This is overcome by the fact that every person takes part in the continuous production and reproduction of social-life itself. This prodction of social-life (ie networks of communication of cooperation) creates the necessary conditions for the production of all and every act of "important work". This production of social life is the greatest and most important "contribution" that we can make. So, every person, regardless of social position, occupies an invaluable place in society and deserves to be rewarded.

Yes, it's definately true that owners as well as employers take much more than they "need." But the original question also suggests that it is logically flawed to complain that workers don't get paid what they are worth, while at the same time believing that people should only have what they need. If you really believe that, wouldn't you logically have to believe that workers are being paid what they ought to be paid (and perhaps more)?

Can't this all be avoided by merely equating "need" with "worth"?. In other words a worker is "worth" what he "needs" and only "needs" what he is "worth". I fear, by use of semantics, i may be avoiding your question but this does seem to prima facie eliminate the 'contradiction'

Absentia, regarding your responses: Very enlightening. Try to understand that I was not intentionally asking a misleading question. It was simply a lack of historical perspective on my part. The idea that the term "to each according to his need" could have implied that the "exploited workers" in the second statement of my original post would recieve a higher payment, would change the nature of the question so significantly that it might not be worthwhile to ask. The second response that the from each/to each statement sets minimums rather than maximums makes it possible to believe both in an entirely noncontradictory way. And so I stand corrected on my previous stance that the two beliefs are logically opposed.

Biopolitical paradise, regarding your response: Why would need and worth necessarily be equal?

Marx said "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Most Marxists complain that corporations only pay workers barely what they need to survive. Which do Marxists prefer, that each person receives only her/his necessities or that each person recieves according to the value of her/his labor?

i'll just preface this by saying that i'm not a marxist.

'to each according to need' is the bare minimum that must be met. as long as there is enough to go around it is taken to be wrong for the basic needs of some to be unfulfilled. and it is especially wrong that the needs of some are not taken care of while a few have far more than enough - which is the inevitable outcome of a capitalist system due to the nature of wage labor and the capitalist rights of ownership.

Marx said "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."
Most Marxists complain that corporations only pay workers barely what they need to survive. Which do Marxists prefer, that each person receives only her/his necessities or that each person recieves according to the value of her/his labor?

What you need to do is define "need." What I suspect you mean is the necessities required to survive, whereas I believe that what Marx meant was what is required for a fulfilling and worthwhile life.
Of course, it's all ridiculously naive to think that each will produce "according to his ability" for the abstract notion of bettering society.

i'll just preface this by saying that i'm not a marxist.

'to each according to need' is the bare minimum that must be met. as long as there is enough to go around it is taken to be wrong for the basic needs of some to be unfulfilled. and it is especially wrong that the needs of some are not taken care of while a few have far more than enough - which is the inevitable outcome of a capitalist system due to the nature of wage labor and the capitalist rights of ownership.
Yes, Absentia has already informed me that the statement refers to a minimum rather than a maximum. That fact has been duely noted, and this argument against Communism has been erased from my vocabulary.

Biopolitical paradise, regarding your response: Why would need and worth necessarily be equal?

I did not mean to imply that they were necessarily equal but only that if they were equal, and moreover, could be equal, then the difficulties of your question wuold be resolved.

But to perhaps steer my response in your direction; Presuming that there was no surplus production (as you seem to favour) and the workers recieve the full worth from there material labour then they would only have acess to only their bare needs as this is all there worth gives them acess to (Obviously, this only follows if you define surplus production in terms of production above production nessecary for survival). In this sense then need and worth would become neccesarily equal. (Note that this is not very well thought through and is more a response to your assumption of what i was trying to say than any clear coherant theoretical position)

Marx said "From each according to his ability to each according to his need."

Most Marxists complain that corporations only pay workers barely what they need to survive.

Corporations consider workers as a ressource, and their "need" are considered as the need of any other living ressources: the need is to survive and reproduce.

Marx consider workers as human beings, and their "need" is what they need to fulfill themselves as human beings, which include decent comfort, education, retirement, leisure, ...

The idea of this sentence is that some people will be able to give more to the community (Einstein did give a lot more to us than the average person) and some will not be able to give the same (people who are handicaped, for example, will hardly be able to "produce" the same, even if it may be possible, depending of the handicap).

On the other hand, some people will need more (like someone with a severe disease) and some people will need less. Even for leisure, some people may like things which costs much and others won't.

In a communist society, people who need more will receive more, and people who can't give much to society will still be considered as members of the society and receive what they need.

Which do Marxists prefer, that each person receives only her/his necessities or that each person recieves according to the value of her/his labor?

How do you value labor ? How do you compare the work of a teacher and the work of a baker ? One does not create any immediate wealth, the other does. And what about scientists ? They'll look in different direction, one will find something, the other won't, but before doing the work, you couldn't know which direction was right. Should one deserve more than other ?

If you could value the amount of effort the person does, maybe it could have sense. But since you can't, since you can't compare the value of two completly different labors, since it depends of stuff people are not responsible of (which education they receive, if they are "gifted" or not - even if I don't really like this idea -, if they have an handicap or not, if they are lucky or not, ...), it feels really unfair for me to reward success that much.

That said, I don't oppose that a small part of the "wage" depends on success, on how good your are in what you do. But it should stay a very small part, just a tiny bonus, nothing more IMHO.

Every human being deserve the right to be happy, to fullfill his life, and to "blossom" (dunno what's the correct translation of french "épanouir").

I did not mean to imply that they were necessarily equal but only that if they were equal, and moreover, could be equal, then the difficulties of your question wuold be resolved.

But to perhaps steer my response in your direction; Presuming that there was no surplus production (as you seem to favour) and the workers recieve the full worth from there material labour then they would only have acess to only their bare needs as this is all there worth gives them acess to (Obviously, this only follows if you define surplus production in terms of production above production nessecary for survival). In this sense then need and worth would become neccesarily equal. (Note that this is not very well thought through and is more a response to your assumption of what i was trying to say than any clear coherant theoretical position)
Your presumption that there is no "surplus production" (in this case defined as production beyond that which will provide a worker with what she/he needs) ignores the first half of the statement by Marx, "From each according to his ability." Unless you want to say that workers only have the ability to produce enough that they will barely survive.

Of course, it's all ridiculously naive to think that each will produce "according to his ability" for the abstract notion of bettering society.

If you ignore the fact that millions of savages did this for hundreds of millions of years; then again, they didn't do it for the sake of an "abstract notion"--they did it because society was organized for their benefit.

Your presumption that there is no "surplus production" (in this case defined as production beyond that which will provide a worker with what she/he needs) ignores the first half of the statement by Marx, "From each according to his ability." Unless you want to say that workers only have the ability to produce enough that they will barely survive.

I am by no means saying that the workers only have the ability to produce enough that they will barely survive. On the contry, the productive capabilities of humanity are almost unlimited. But it would be naive to claim that the slogan "From each according to his ability" should be read as an imperative to produce as much as possible. Wasted production is pointless as you yourself claim;

Finally, why would you want to create that kind of surplus in the first place. At some point those goods have to be used by somebody, or the labor used to create them was a complete waste.

Individual and collective production, should limited when the "needs" of all are met. It is just a matter of defining those "needs" actually are. If one defines need as that that is "neccesary for survival" then production, in an attempt to halt a "complete waste" of labour, should be stopped at this point. Thus workers CAN retain the full benefits of their production (in so far as their production value can possibley be identified) whilst recieving what they "need" and been capable but, importantly, unwilling to produce more.

As my postscript indicated, in adapting my answer to what you presumed i said my stance has been slightly perverted. All I was trying to say was that the two satements, as i have hopefully shown, are, as a matter of argumentation, not NECESSARILY mutually exclusive. I do not deny that they can be read as contardictory.

In sum, I think your error (if i may be so bold as to presume) is to take the slogan "From each according to his ability" as a direct and literal imperative rather than as a general and non-specific summation of a vast and ambitious political philosophy.