In this post I want to examine Marx's phrase to sum up a communist society—"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Most of our time spent with Marx has examined his critiques and criticisms of capitalism rather than his ideas of what system would be better than capitalism. But this "from each … to each" sentence gives us a sense of what Marx envisioned. However, I have some objections to it.
First of all, I am troubled by Marx's mention of needs. What seems glaringly absent is any discussion of who should determine one's needs. Ideally, I think, the individual (who knows his own needs better than anyone else) would do whatever possible, within reason, to meet his needs. A capitalist system, augmented by varying degrees of government intervention, seems capable of doing a reasonably good job of allowing citizens to both determine and meet their own needs (examples like poor access to health care in the US, I would argue, is a case for better government policy, but does nothing to challenge basic capitalist ideas like the appropriateness private property). Marx's statement, however, seems to contain the rather insidious notion that other people will determine the individual's needs. I can think of at least a couple problems with this. First, it is inefficient—an individual is much more efficient in responding to his own needs than any other number of people could be in figuring out what this person needs. Second, the potential for incorrectly determining a person's needs seems great when it is not the individual himself making that determination. Of course, the individual would be inclined to overestimate his needs, but errors seem likely to be far more numerous and harmful when other people are determining needs.
I also have a problem with "from each according to his abilities." It seems to me that citizens living in a society governed by this principle would have a somewhat weak incentive to work. They have already been promised "to each according to his needs," and their needs will not go away if they are lazy workers. Although the idea of everyone contributing as much as they are able has appeal, it just does not seem realistic to expect that humans would give according their abilities if they lacked incentives for working.
I agree that determining needs (particularly distinguishing wants from needs) is a tricky topic. There are a lot of things in my life that I could physically survive without, but which of these are necessary for my life to be diginified? What, in fact, does dignified even mean? Making these kind of determinations would be difficult for anyone, but to me, the idea of leaving individuals in charge of defining their own needs is at least as terrifying as leaving that responsibility to some external power. You acknowledged an individual's tendency to overestimate their needs, but I think this tendency would be much more harmful than you seem to allow. I, for example, would be very tempted to lable my cell phone as a need, rather than a desire. I have gone without it before and could again if it was really necessary, but I would never choose to give it up. I feel like most of us have at least one luxury that we feel that way about. In a society where we defined our own needs, if we claimed these luxuries, it would likely be at the expense of another's most basic needs. That kind of injustice could be avoided if an objective external force was defining need. It might be tough to create some kind of objective organization responsible for these matters, but I think it's more feasible than expecting objectivity from individuals about their own needs.
ReplyDeleteI think examining Marx's proposed alternative to capitalism is a nice idea. I agree with you, Mills, in that the new system Marx suggests seems extremely difficult if not unrealistic, possibly because the actual method of getting to that system is not mentioned as far as I know. I do, however, think that the idea that people need "incentives for working" shows just how pervasive our capitalist ideas are. The only reason, I would say, that people in this day and age need a reason to go to work (namely, wages) only because they are completely alienated from that labor--that labor holds absolutely no INTRINSIC value to them. Our work is not an end, but a means to an end called money. In the new system, however, people WOULD in fact work because any imposing of oneself on nature would be intrinsically valued. So perhaps people would "work" even more because there would not be designated "working hours" and "leisure hours"...there would only be the compulsion to project oneself into nature through a different kind of "work."
ReplyDeleteMills,
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of communism as a socially insufficient and economically unrealistic form of thought is seen in many defenses of capitalism. This belief lies in our fear of loss of motivation, evidenced by your claim that citizens "would have a somewhat weak incentive to work."
However, this political ideology can be defended from the position that it maintains its own diagnoses of the illnesses of societies. Namely, the lack of equality.
Though i have been raised in a capitalist society, and indeed feel that I would prefer it over this seemingly Utopian world, I do acknowledge the tendency to ignore communist logic. People point towards the fear of economic regression and loss of technological motivation. I, too, would fear for the loss of education and movement forward.
However, viruses wouldn't stop. And loved ones would still need cures for diseases. Children would grow up, wanting to save their fathers and mothers, wanting to protect their friends, to inspire others to find beauty.
Though the economic incentive would no longer be there - I do not believe that humanity would lose its drive. In a properly realized communist society - not one that has been forced on the people - motivation would still exist. Desire would not fade away.
Therefore - though I do agree with your fear that progression would diminish for a time, I do not believe that it would cease entirely.
To expand upon your arguments against other people determining one's needs:
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest issue with this idea is the possibility for corruption. One might assume that individual needs would be determined by a small group of government officials, and what's to stop these people of power from determining that the general populace need only the basic necessities, but they need large houses and nice cars? Even if these officials were just, how would one determine another's needs? As you said, beyond mere subsistence, this seems to be something best determined by the individual himself.
Mills,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this thoughtful blog post. I have two things to say in response.
First, I agree that determining needs is a tricky thing to do. I would like to point out, however, that in stating that capitalism seems largely sufficient at meeting people's needs, you yourself are engaging in what you criticize: namely, evaluating the extent of other people's needs. You have implicitly formulated an idea of what these needs are and then determined that capitalism is sufficient for meeting them. Perhaps capitalism is sufficient for meeting your needs as you evaluate them, but that is another thing altogether. Furthermore, our current society constantly engages in such third person evaluation of needs. This includes minimum wage, mandatory education, social security, legal rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and many, many other examples. In fact, I think a strong argument can be made that whenever we declare something to be a human right we are declaring it to be a universal human need, i.e. something that is necessary to being human. This is why we often call the denial of such rights "crimes against humanity."
Secondly, I think the belief that people would have little incentive for working in a communist society is an exaggeration. It seems to be derived from examples of failed communist societies, especially Soviet Russia, but we have to ask ourselves whether these were actually true instances of communism as Marx conceived of it. I think that it is undeniable that they were not. Soviet Russia was not an egalitarian society, but one in which the proletariat were oppressed, stolen from, and murdered in the tens of millions for the benefit of yet another ruling elite. Under such circumstances, the incentive to work, if it was felt, was largely done so out of fear; and if it was not felt, this was likely because most people felt oppressed rather than liberated by their economic situation. In contrast, I think that Victoria eloquently captures the way in which people would still feel incentive to work in a communist society.
Again, thank you for this great post!
Colin,
ReplyDeleteThose are good objections. For the first, I see your point that rights, social programs, etc. as "third person evaluations" of needs, as you put it. I agree. However, there is certainly a difference between social programs meeting several societal needs and every need being met by...well, I don't know (if you made "to each according to his needs" into a complete sentence, it would be passive voice). Also, I disagree with your assessment that my criticism was itself an evaluation of needs. I was trying to say that individuals are better equipped to determine their own needs than anyone else, and that capitalism (generally, but with varying degrees of success) allows them to make that determination.
With your second point, I think you (and all the other commenters) have made good criticisms of what I said. However, I would still say that the incentive to work in communism would be weaker at least by some degree than in capitalism. I think that someone in a capitalist system, obligated to make a living in order to survive, would necessarily have a greater incentive to work than someone in a communist society, with all basic needs guaranteed.
Mills,
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying. Your point about needs was more nuanced than I originally gave it credit for. I still maintain, however, that implicit in your belief that capitalism "seems capable of doing a reasonably good job" of allowing people to satisfy their needs is an evaluation on your part of what these needs are. Now, I understand that you are arguing that capitalism puts individuals in the situation to evaluate their own needs, but for you to say that capitalism does a good job of meeting those needs requires you to know what those needs are. Unless everyone living under a capitalist system has expressed these needs to you, you would seem to be evaluating these needs for them (based, I am sure, off of reasonable assumptions that I myself would agree with). I am not criticizing the fact that you make this evaluation, only pointing out that you do make it.
Nevertheless, I do agree that the notion of some infallible authority evaluating everyone's needs is frightening. Perhaps, though, this would not be the only way...