@TheCaptain7777 said in #59:
> I've heard "from each according to ability. From each according to need" a hundred million times
I can only suggest that you read at least once what Marx actually wrote in "Critique of the Gotha Programme".
"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. 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.
Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.
Hence, equal right here is still in principle -- bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.
In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.
But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. 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. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
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 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!"
@TheCaptain7777 said in #59:
> 1) who is in charge of handing out what is needed? And how are they stopped from being unfair?
>
> 2) how can it be proven whether or not a man is giving to the best of his ability?
>
> 3) If a man is thought to be lazy, do you still give him what he needs? What do you do with regards to people like these? (There will be a lot of them. Trust me)
These questions relate to communist society and you have already read the answers to them in Marx.
> 4) How much are college students expected to work? And how do you avoid people pretending to go to college to avoid work?
Colleges and universities are available free of charge.
Students who pass exams with 4 and/or 5 on a five-point scale receive state scholarships. 40 rubles is enough for normal nutrition. Out-of-town students are provided with places in dormitories for a purely symbolic fee.
If a student is from a poor family (for example, there is no father, the mother works as a cleaner, and there are two younger sisters), then the scholarship is provided regardless of academic performance. And one-time financial assistance is provided.
During the summer holidays, you could earn money in a student construction team. But there you also had to do cultural and educational work among the population. Well, at least a little bit))
> 5) What motive does a person have to work a more difficult or dangerous job?
Salary size.
Moral encouragement (entry into the honor roll, state award - Order of the Red Banner of Labor)
> 6) Is there still private property? Who gets access to rare unique items?
Private property is prohibited, but personal property is permitted.
Collecting stamps, coins, paintings, and art objects is permitted. Really valuable items are usually kept in museums.
> 7) How does R&D get funding?
University science is financed within the budget of the Ministry of Education. In addition, it is permitted to conclude contracts with institutions for the performance of specific research.
The USSR Academy of Sciences had a separate budget and distributed it among its institutes.
There was also industry science - scientific and design institutions that stood somewhere in the middle between academic institutes and real production. They were financed by industry ministries from their income.
> 8) How do you avoid moral hazard in business practices?
>
I didn't understand the question
> 9) If you want to start a business, how do you acquire materials?
A private person cannot start a business.
A socialist enterprise - if it does not require large expenses. If capital construction is required, purchasing expensive equipment - this is only in the next five-year plan, if the ministry manages to send an application to the State Planning Committee.
> 10) Who gets to live in the nice houses and apartments? If I build a giant mansion, can I live in it?
Party officials, Soviet and state employees, celebrities. And often the most ordinary people lived next to them. And these people were very proud of how famous their neighbors were) But don't think that some engineer was Brezhnev's neighbor - no, two levels lower.
Some Soviet artists were millionaires. In Soviet times, this was not talked about, but later, for example, Yuri Antonov complained:
Yes, I had millions, but I couldn't do anything! Well, I ate in good restaurants, bought clothes. They allowed me to buy a foreign car. But when I started building a two-story country mansion, I was called to the Central Committee and told - I need to be more modest.
> 11) How do you acquire something that you don't technically need, but would like to have? Most of our money is not spent on needs.
I didn't understand the question
I read that (referring to Marx), and I will not pretend to understand all of it, but didn't the last paragraph say that true communism can never occur without people wanting to work? Why should we expect people to want to work any time in the future? People very rarely want to work now, and I can't find a historical precedent for people wanting to work on a broad scale.
@stockwellpete said in #69:
> The policy on various forms of delinquency/free-loading in a socialist society would be decided democratically through the system of worker's councils all the way up to the government itself who would legislate on the matter. I would imagine there would be a multiplicity of views about it ranging from more coercive viewpoints to much less coercive ones. Some people might argue for a very basic income if someone is not working without good cause, while others might be tolerant and give the person more time to adjust to the new society. There is no blueprint that I can point you to. It would all depend on the circumstances at the time.
>
> I wouldn't be in favour of jailing someone for laziness at all. Prison should be reserved for violent people mainly. Banishment? No. Whether laziness would be deemed "criminal" I cannot say - the new society would have to decide how to characterise it. Anti-social rather than criminal, perhaps? You could tell if someone is working through their employment records just like you can today. I don't understand the point of this question.
If they are given what they need, then why should they work? And if they are punished for their laziness, then how do we define and prove a man's laziness?
@TheCaptain7777 said in #73:
> If they are given what they need, then why should they work? And if they are punished for their laziness, then how do we define and prove a man's laziness?
It might be decided that they only receive a basic income. Enough to survive, but not fully participate in society in the same way that whole swathes of the population cannot participate fully in capitalist society (e.g. go to the movies or a football match). They might slso be required to attend the socialist equivalent of a job centre for interview, or they might be offered an educational option. They might be required to do some sort of community work. All these various sanctions would have to be decided by society as a whole. Of course, lazy people might also face social ostracisation to a certain degree. They would not be held in particularly high esteem by other people.
I have no doubt that there will be some delinquency in the first decades of a socialist society, but it will dwindle away to almost nothing as new generations are socialised in the values of socialism and collectivism.
@TheCaptain7777 said in #73:
> I read that (referring to Marx), and I will not pretend to understand all of it, but didn't the last paragraph say that true communism can never occur without people wanting to work? Why should we expect people to want to work any time in the future? People very rarely want to work now, and I can't find a historical precedent for people wanting to work on a broad scale.
Here is a short article on alienation, which seems to be one of your main concerns in this discussion . . .
"What is the cause of alienation? Written by Judy Cox 2/2/2025
Alienation is often used to refer to a set of feelings most people have experienced. One health website describes the symptoms of alienation as feeling isolated from friends and family, feeling helpless and that the world has little meaning. But these feelings are not symptoms of individual weakness or psychological disorders. They are symptoms of the way capitalism impacts on our lives.
The thing that makes us distinct from animals is our capacity to work together to produce what we need to live. We have unlimited potential to develop new ways of creating and communicating, new technologies, new treatments. But the drive to accumulate ever greater profits means that potential can never be realised within this system. Human creativity is directed away from making our lives better and towards producing piles of useless commodities. Resources are pumped into developing military technology. And we are trapped into living in ways that are destroying the planet.
The economy, the financial markets, wars and imperialism, the broken nature of our everyday lives all seem beyond our control.
But there is nothing natural or inevitable about feeling powerless. The system breeds such feelings and then weaponises them to keep us passive and open to hostility to others.
Karl Marx’s theory of alienation reveals how human activity creates society and how we have the potential to create a different future. Marx identified four specific ways in which alienation pervades capitalist society. Workers are alienated from the things they produce, which are owned and distributed by the bosses. Workers produce cash crops for the market when they are malnourished, build houses in which they will never live, produce shoes they cannot afford to wear. The workers are paid less than the value they create. A proportion of what they produce is appropriated by the boss. Workers also put creative labour into what they produce, and that creativity cannot be recovered. So work does not stimulate us but burns up our energies and leaves us feeling exhausted.
The second element of alienation is a lack of control over the process of production. We have little say over the conditions in which we work and how our work is organised, and how it affects us physically and mentally. The bosses might pay lip service to wellbeing. But they and their managers are driven to make us work harder, longer and faster in conditions that make us sick.
Machines and technology do not serve us—we serve them. Our individual skills and abilities are crushed, our insights are discarded. Conformity is more valued than creativity.
Thirdly, we are alienated from other human beings. Capitalist society creates competition between workers. This pressure means we see others as objects in our way and queue-jumpers who have unfairly snatched more than they deserve. We are often connected to others through the buying and selling of commodities, rather than forming a personal connection.
Finally, we are alienated from what it means to be human. We have the potential to work and plan collectively to meet our needs and those of the natural world. But the system impels us to care only about ourselves and to see other people as the source of our problems. Alienation pervades every aspect of society and our lives. People constantly try to carve out spaces where they feel in control and can express themselves, where they make connections and feel part of something that matters. Not even the super rich can escape from alienation as individuals. But capitalism also pushes working class people to unite.
Resistance can confront that pervasive sense of powerlessness and begin to challenge the roots of alienation in capitalism’s drive for profits. When we resist, we get a glimpse of our power. Working class action can tear down the prison walls of alienation."
@TheCaptain7777 said in #59:
> I've heard "from each according to ability. From each according to need" a hundred million times, so please explain the function.
>
> 1) who is in charge of handing out what is needed? And how are they stopped from being unfair?
Here my opinion in the case of a non-capitalist utopian society.
The means of production are managed by the workers themselves. Each factory, farm or other such structure can have its own small "soviet" (council), whose members, to avoid any form of excessive leadership, are renewed regularly, until after a while, all the workers have participated at least once in a soviet in this period of time. The distribution of products is done with the greatest clarity because in a world without money and without the notion of capitalism, corruption is vain, useless and a threat to the balance of the workers' collective. The workers distribute and exchange products among themselves, according to the needs of each, with the assumption that "each" is educated about the value of the need.
> 2) how can it be proven whether or not a man is giving to the best of his ability?
Proving is a form of authority, proving the value of work is a capitalist motive. It just takes education so that people are aware that laziness is also a motive of capitalism, and there also needs to be trust between workers, which would strengthen human bonds.
> 3) If a man is thought to be lazy, do you still give him what he needs? What do you do with regards to people like these? (There will be a lot of them. Trust me)
Well, if the individual thinks himself of being 'lazy', he will probably accept help. Some 'lazy' people got to this point because they have suffered the different aspects of the capitalist system. Some people can be 'lazy' in purpose of protest or even because they're scared about working conditions under capitalism, but there is also 'lazyness' if some people are convinced that others can work instead of them. The end of capitalism will stop the causes of laziness.
> 4) How much are college students expected to work? And how do you avoid people pretending to go to college to avoid work?
First study, then work. Student work is very often difficult and puts a brake on study, this is also a cause of capitalism, because students work for pecuniary reasons: to earn money to pay for their studies and their daily life.
The student studies, it is already a form of work in itself, but a work which is useful for the person because it helps in his personal development, prepares his profession and his current and future involvement in civic life
> 5) What motive does a person have to work a more difficult or dangerous job?
Difficult question, but I would say that we should take into consideration the difficulties of each profession: a teacher has the task of educating people, helping them find their way and learn civic values. A factory worker has the task of producing tools or objects useful to society and its development. A scientist has the task of participating in the progress of his field through research, experiments and many other things. But also, a more ecological and non-capitalist world would reduce the proportion of dangerous professions like mining, and would improve working conditions for the rare workers in these professions.
> 6) Is there still private property? Who gets access to rare unique items?
Private property would not exist. The collective would self-manage the structures, via soviets.
there would be no more rare items
> 10) Who gets to live in the nice houses and apartments? If I build a giant mansion, can I live in it?
There are no "nice" nor bad houses, the house must reflect the needs of its inhabitants and allow its inhabitants to have good conditions.
If you need to accommodate 15 people, in good conditions and with comfort, of course, there is no problem in building a large house. But for a single person to build a palace filled with objects that arouse the feeling of material wealth and reinforce the feeling of individualism is not
> 11) How do you acquire something that you don't technically need, but would like to have? Most of our money is not spent on needs.
In such a society, everyone's work contributes to the collective, so what everyone produces is useful to the entire collective, from the worker to the artist. Especially in a world without money and without capitalism.
> workers are paid less then the value of what they produce
Necessarily untrue. Say an employer offers a worker $200 to build a small table. For the deal to go through, the worker must value the $200 more than the table, and the employer meat value the table more than the $200. So both the worker and the employer profit from the exchange. A worker would never work for an amount he deemed unfair.
Hello
@TheCaptain7777 said in #77:
> A worker would never work for an amount he deemed unfair.
Sorry, but this is just not remotely true. Why do you think working class people formed trade unions? To negotiate better terms and conditions, that's why. Billions of workers work for wages that they think are unfair. They have no option because it is the only work available to them.
@stockwellpete said in #79:
> Sorry, but this is just not remotely true. Why do you think working class people formed trade unions? To negotiate better terms and conditions, that's why. Billions of workers work for wages that they think are unfair. They have no option because it is the only work available to them.
Companies already necessarily pay competitive prices. In other words, they can't really pay workers more. Maybe people don't realize how much society does for them already. In the US at least, most people considered poor have a place to live and food to eat. Then they spend money that they don't have to live better then they currently can, build up a mountain of credit card debt, buy a car they can't afford, and slowly choke themselves to financial ruin. I think calling yourself poor in that sorry of situation is an insult to the people who are actually poor. The fact that you spend an absurd amount of time on a chess forum clearly shows that you are not poor.
Now, I want to learn about the workings of socialism. I do not want to hear about the tyrannical evils of capitalism. I'm sorry for getting sidetracked. Thank you CSKA_Moscou for answering my questions.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.