Thought for the day

[davywavy]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is the perfect incentive for people to minimize ability and maximize need.

Discuss.

Comments

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

As long as neither is self-assessed, but held to a universal standard, I think it's a pretty good maxim in times of crisis and poverty.

But it fails to take into concern 'wants', and makes for a utilitarian, spartan society free of art, creativity, or intellectualism, and the cultural 'needs' of society as a whole as opposed to the Pol Potty - everyone must be equal and boring, so it's not anywhere near perfect.

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

Ah, but only if we allow people self-define their abilities/needs.

Remove self-diagnosis, end the problem.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

People self-define their abilities in a capitalist system and sell those abilities to the highest bidder. It seems to work pretty well.

[(Anonymous)]

I suggest you study the Toyota Production System: As their high levels of employee and customer satisfaction attest, they must be doing something right.

Personally, I think if you apply the 'needs' maxim in a purely materialistic manner, then you're missing the point. People need recognition and a sense of control over their lives far more than they need a new dvd player.

And yes David, some people just need a kick in the nuts and their donuts confiscating.

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

PARTLY.
it is dependant upon ones acess to the best places to SELL your ability.
Two 16 year olds.
neither have a single qualification.
One grows up in a council estate in Bradford.
One grows up in a townhouse in Chelsea.
Both are genius (IQ180+).
Both should be able to sell themselves under the capitalist system, overcoming their lack of qualifications with natural skill.

capitalism DOES allow this, it encourages this, agreed.
Now Dave...

tell me that EQUAL opportunity for selling themselves is available for both 16 years olds!
Tell me that the system works BEYOND the dogmatic abstract?
Now, tell me it will work when I add two more even more intelligent 16 year olds, one who lives is Liberia and the other who lives in Peru.
tell me the Capitalist system works qually and fairly for all.
:)

remove self-definition.
market forces are in PRINCIPLE a great way to deal with everything, but in REALITY a great way to deal with only a few things.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what yo're getting at with you Liberia and Peru examples: growing up in war-torn thrid world countries isn't a great start irrespective of the economic principles guiding the state in question. Take the witless rebel factions out of the equation and who knows?
It's interesting that in at least one of the two examples the rebels, the Shining Path, who have done so much to limit opportunities, prospects and lifespans for the children of Peru, are Marxist.

The two kids growing up in the UK are a different kettle of fish; fortunately they have the advantage of a stable Western Democracy to give them a basis - a criteria which I would argue is an essential prerequisite for any fair economic system to thrive. Certainly luck confers advantages, but you can't eradicate luck and attempt to do so results in Despotism which is a damaging. That said, anyone can get themselves out of their background; this guy is a great example. One of my personal favourites.
So, to expand my original contention: Western Capitalist Democracy is the best system yet devised by humanity to give the population as a whole the greatest oportunity for health, happiness and the opportunity to better themselves.

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

"Western Capitalist Democracy is the best system yet devised by humanity to give the population as a whole the greatest oportunity for health, happiness and the opportunity to better themselves."

Contention:
Western Democracy.
NOT Western Capitalist Democracy.

Democracy is NOT Capitalist.
Democarcy DECIDES to ALLOW Capitalism exist because Capitalism SERVES the needs of the Dmeocracy.
But Capitalism is nothing more than a tool to be used and if decided upon, disguarded by Democracies.

Capitalism does not get to be said in the same sentence as Democracy.
The two ideals are violently differant. There is common ground, accepted and I am NOT saying capitalism is bad.
Saying capitalism is bad is as stupid as saying it is all good.

But leave capitalism out of democracy.
Democracy can do VERY well without capitalism.
And capitalism can do fine without democracy (after all, Facist germany was a great capitalist society).

Agreed?

[(Anonymous)]

"Facist germany was a great capitalist society"

Er, no. Post facist capitalism is more efficient as it allows people to opt out of structures they are placed in, and place themselves in structures they suit better. Try quitting the Hitler Youth.

[mrmmarc.livejournal.com]

Er... YEAH.
Read my point- facist Germany WAS a Great Capitalist society. Not a Democracy- but a great CAPITALIST society. Capitalist Facist yes, but it was what it was.
You had a government throwing around money, investing in the private sector HEAVILY, they were throwing money/encouraging buisness to develop new technologies (for example public television in which Nazi Germany was THE pioneer), they encouraged buinesses to take over already existing factories for free (well, a much smaller asking price as they were confiscated jewish owned factories), later they would provide slave labour (jews and others working in the camps)... which is why loads of European and American companies invested in Nazi Germany (my fave being IBM).

A lot of people made a LOT of money out of the free market 9unless you were a Jew) economic reforms Nazi germany brought in.
No it wasn't a perfect capitalist society- it WAS protectionist to a degree, but from an economic point of view- when Hitler inherited germany it was an economic wreck.
Until the war broke out it was THE success story and capitalism was the underpinning of the thing.

AGAIN- Not saying Capitalism is bad per se, nor that facism and Capitalism are bad per se (which would be stupid), just that Capitalism and Democracy do not go hand in hand.
Anyone can be a capitalist- they can also be a mass murding bastard who runs a dictatorship.
For crying oput loud- Drug Catels are capitalist!

(grins)
Th's my only point.
That facists should burn in hell slowly?
Oh yeah- bunch of assholes who sleep with theirown UGLY mothers and who actually and in very real ways deserve to die- agreed.
But see above for my whole point!

To make this work.....

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

"From each according to their ability,"
- Ability would need to be judged and an acceptable range put in place
- Work output would further need to be monitored ongoing
- there would have to be punishments for failing to meet expectations
- Reward achievement up to a point.

"to each according to their needs"
- Need would be judged and criteria placed on an individual basis
- Means to ensure provision of requirements also would have to work.

This would also have to cover so called non-productive abilities & needs - leisure, art, music - so that a postivie work-life balance was maintained, as well as maintaining healthy family orientated / cultural ties.

All of this would require a certain level of loss of freedom and something more of a state positive role in life in order to standardise and ensure that the issues you mention do not come about.

It is certainly possible within small groups / tribes to self-regulate as everyone is aware of each others abilities/needs, but standardising across strangers is more difficult.

Re: To make this work.....

[(Anonymous)]

I think your approach is overly technocratic. W. Edwards Demming observes that people aren't born lazy and obstinate (The New Economics, MIT Press) but become so as a result of experience. In short, their lives teach them to be jerks. We can be pretty sure that this is not through addressing their needs, and that an overly regulated environment in which people are simply commodotized will result in disfunctional people.

To take a gaming analogy, when asked by referees 'why are my players such jerks, they won't do the adventure?' I reply 'because it's the only way they can influence the outcome.' - If peoples lives are so regulated the only way they can have any control is through being jerks, then jerks they will be.

It's not all bad, the overly regulated 70s gave us punk after all.

Re: To make this work.....

[blue-cat.livejournal.com]

Agreed - I didn't say it was anything other than that :)

However a society without rules is an anarchy and often the strong win.

Passive verb watch

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

"Need would be judged and criteria placed on an individual basis"

By whom? According to what process? How on earth do you gather enough information for this to be fair?

Re: Passive verb watch

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Why, by the right-thinking, wise and all-knowing Central Committee, who obviously would know what is best for us.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

* shrug *

Yes, what you say is correct, if you're a selfish arse who's only concern is yourself and not the wider society you live in.

Of course, the fact that a lot of people ARE selfish arses means that the maxim will never work for society as a whole. There will always be somebody willing to take advantage of the system to exploit those weaker than him/herself.

It's my personal opinion that co-operation gets you further than competition, but, of couse, there will always be competitive people who don't want to co-operate and that's their prerogative. Humanity has, after all, advanced by a combination of the two - co-operating in small groups to compete with other small groups.

And I'm a wishy washy liberal LEFTY so I'm happy to let people live as they like, as long as they'll let me do the same.

[(Anonymous)]

Er, Live & let live is a liberal, perhaps even tory, philosophy, and has nothing to do with the reality of leftism.

What I was driving at is the necessity of responsibility: In order to get people to give 'according to their needs' we need them to take responsibility for that, which means micromanagement is right out. Didn't Marx say that after the revolution the role of governemnt will be diminished? Well, in any efficient system, the role of management is diminished, as there's very little point paying someone to do a job, then paying someone else to make sure they did it right.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Liberal and lefty are not mutually exclusive terms. If they were, the word "liberal" would not have become a catch-all stick with which to abuse the left in American politics, would it?

Tory and Liberal are fairly mutually exclusive, though, at least on how I remember things in the 80's...

You can be right wing and liberal, and you can be left wing and liberal, but neither of those things fit into the top two parties in this counrty, nor have they in my lifetime. They can both fit into the third party, but as the Lib Dems haven't a cat in hell's chance of winning at a general election, I think we're both waiting on the revolution.

The only difference is that come the revolution, we both want to see different people be first against the wall... ;)

And yes, in any efficient system the role of management is reduced. The crucial point is defining what makes an efficient system. In a system where those at the bottom are paid a subsitence wage and exploited, you will need to employ managers to check the work because the workers won't feel any incentive to take pride in their work.

Responisibility can be just as absent for the majority in a right wing-authoritarian system (and indeed, is, at the moment) as it is in a communist system. The trick is liberalness, not whether you structure your economy to promote co-operation or to promote competition.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Bringing US parties/politics into this muddies things, I think. Politically, the US democrat party - the 'liberals' - are slightly to the right of our own Conservative Party on the political spectrum, whilst the Republicans would be as vilified as are Veritas or the BNP over here.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Bringing US parties/politics into this muddies things, I think.

Because it contradicts the views expressed above? LOL. I like getting muddy, as long as I can have a bath afterwards ;)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You've said in the past that you've got US friends who you identify with and they're 'liberals' in the American sense. Being Liberal in the US is being slightly to the right of Norman Tebbit over here, so naturally I came to certain conclusions over that.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

happy to let people live as they like

Including leaving the rich with their money and their servants?

[(Anonymous)]

"Including leaving the rich with their money and their servants?"

Take a careful look at the country of origin on the various products you consume, and you'll see that, via the proxy of, I'd guess, Tesco (or someone similar ) You pay your servants (the one's you can't see in the third world, but work 12 hours a day in dismal conditions making stuff cheap so you can consume more than you produce) much less than 'Rich' folk pay their servants in the first world with proper labour protection laws.

I'd sooner work for Tarquin Riche-Bastarde than Tesco any day of the week.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

First off, Mr Anonymous, I don't like your presumption that I consume more than I produce.

You seem to want to solve the problem of employing people in awful conditions by not employing them at all, or alternativly having Western countries write the laws of the third world.

[(Anonymous)]

No, I was simple pointing out your rank hypocisy. I live in the first world, I am a parasite. My 'presumtion' as you arrogantly misname it, is an extrapolation of first world energy and commodity consumption rates: If you're an average citizen, and, to be perfectly honest, you look it, then you consume more than you produce.

We make the rules of the third world by owning their debt. Read 'Collossus' for more information.

[pjc50.livejournal.com]

I called it presumption because you declared me to be a parasite knowing nothing about me, what I do or what I consume. Maybe prejudice would have been a better word. And if you and I are parasitic, then what of the first world unemployed?

How are you valuing those energy sources and commodities, that they are greater than the resulting production?

I've read Colossus. I'm quite aware of the many ways in which we control the third world; debt is probably less important than the WTO in the context of trade and work. But you've not answered the question of whether not employing people in the third world would be better for them, or whether we should impose our environmental and labour standards (with their associated costs).