Talk:To each according to his contribution/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism

Especifismo removed the following from the criticism section:

Many Libertarian socialists argue that it is impossible to measure either labor or products in this manner. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon writes:

How much does she produce? How much does it cost to feed her? That is the supreme question for the godesss which springs from the, what shall I call it? heroism formula—From each… To each… in which Louis Blanc sums up the rights and duties of an associate.

Who then shall determine the capacity? who shall be the judge of the needs?

You say that my capacity is 100: I maintain that it is only 90. You add that my needs are 90: I affirm that they are 100. There is a difference between us of twenty upon needs and capacity. It is, in other words, the well-known debate between demand and supply. Who shall judge between the society and me?

...

It is one of two things: either association is compulsory, and in that case it is slavery; or it is voluntary, and then we ask what guaranty the society will have that the member will work according to his capacity and what guaranty the member will have that the association will reward him according to his needs? Is it not evident that such a discussion can have but one solution—that the product and the need be regarded as correlated expressions, which leads us to the rule of liberty, pure and simple?

I would note that the article refers to an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor, and therefore supposes that these can be objectively measured; Proudhon's quote denies that these can be objectively measured, and therefore criticizes the stated principle. I know that many anarchocommunists also agree that these cannot be measured and propose different solutions, but am not familiar with the sources. Jacob Haller 00:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The article says "Each worker is rewarded in accordance with the amount of labor that they contribute to society." That's what Proudhon wants isn't it? Whether that can be objectively measured or not is another matter. Proudhon thought it could be measured by punching out on a time clock, in other words according to the amount of time worked is my understanding. What Proudhon was against was the individual being paid "according to his needs" when that need is decided by someone else other than that individual. In other words he was against communism. I'm not sure how all this relates to this article. I'm not sure whether this article is about anything coherent in the first place and should probably be deleted. Especifismo 01:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it's about either. Is it a slogan? A program? Anyway, by my reading, Proudhon avoids absolute measures of value, insisting that some form of free association/disassociation must continually adjust these measures, and usually preferring market to non-market approaches. He endorses the "just price" but insists it "must be PAID FOR" (emphasis in the original, Revolution, 6th study). He regards commerce, i.e. commercial innovation, adjusting supply to meet demand, as socially-necessary labor. Jacob Haller 02:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Marx (and indeed the capitalist mode of production has a method of measuring labor).

...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.

The line "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" is the answer to how to measure labor objectively. Marx's explination is vague however as "amount of labor" could be how much is produced (in units) or how much is worked (in hours). Most likely it means both, since that would be more just. After all you might be able to produce twenty units in the hour that I produce only five. We both worked an hour, but you clearly did more in that time than I. So we would be rewarded both according to the hour we worked then according to how much we produced. (Demigod Ron 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

I would also like to reply to Especifismo's comment that this whether this article "is about anything coherent in the first place and should probably be deleted". This article is about one of Marxism's most important and at the same time most unsong ideas! Distribution in a post-capitalism society. Wikipedians have explored and described every other piece of marxist theory but this one, someone had to write this article. If you dont think it's coherent enough, edit the bloody thing. That's the point. (Demigod Ron 16:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Work can be more or less difficult, risky, or disagreeable, as well as over-supplied or under-supplied. Jacob Haller 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Second principle of socialism"

This isn't an agreed principle of the socialist movement; it is a principle of the transition between capitalism and communism in Marxist theory. I think that the article could avoid much if this confusion by clarifying between senses of "socialism." Jacob Haller 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What lies between capitalism and communism is socialism (the lower phase of communism society). (75.74.196.215 03:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

Furthermore it says "at least Marx's definition of socialism." So this clears it up. There are many debates on what socialism is but Marxists are one group that have the definition pretty clear cut. (75.74.196.215 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

But nobody else uses "socialism" in that sense. Jacob Haller 08:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean no other "socialist" idiology. That's true, only marxists see socialism the society that will emerge from capitalism. All other "socialists" are either anarchists, utopians, or bourgeois socialists (such as market socialists and social democrats.) And they all have different definitions for socialism. Yet, is marxism not the most influential idiology within the whole labor movement? If not the most influential idiology of recent time? Thus while this article may present one pillar of one view of a larger idiology, surely it is a relevant view. (Demigod Ron 21:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

Marx himself uses socialism in two senses (1) the socialist movement and (2) a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. Generally speaking, movements have principles, and historical phases do not (they only have characteristics). I think the article should make it clear that it refers to the latter, and have inserted a short clarification; feel free to come up with something better.

I'm not sure why you're convinced Marxism is that influential. It's not the 1920s any more.

"Bourgeois socialism" is a pejorative term. Jacob Haller 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a clarification, it clearly says "at least Marx's definition of socialism." While it applies to how marxists define a socialist society, it may or may not apply to how the other three groups define a socialist society.(Demigod Ron 18:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

He uses at least two definitions of socialism... Jacob Haller 20:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And the "founding pillar" statement strongly implies socialism as a movement and not socialism as a transitional system, since transitional systems do not have founding pillars... Jacob Haller 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's debateable. The dialetical view of history within Marxism basically states that all socioeconomic systems are transitional systems and all have certain characterists. I do see your point and the "founding pillar" statement is my own design, Lenin called them "principles" while Marx would refer to them as "characteristics." (Demigod Ron 05:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

POV and cleanup tags added

This article contains some POV formulations (e.g. "hazy statements") and claims that not everyone would probably agree with (e.g. "Furthermore it invalidates the old bourgeois argument that socialism is unreasonable because it provides no incentives for workers.") (I, for one, would disagree because I believe this argument is invalidated differently :-) The above discussion also seems to indicate that there is disagreement whether the article correctly characterizes socialism.

The article also contains some ungrammatical sentences.

Joriki (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, feel free to fix these problems. It is easy to critique and yell slogans by the sidelines, but a bit harder to actually fix the problems. Also the above discussion led to this version of the article, which correctly categorizes what the article means by "socialism". (Demigod Ron (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC))

You're right -- fixing is harder -- that's why I yelled from the sidelines :-) Unfortunately I don't have the time to fix all the problems I see, but I thought it would still be helpful to point them out. Joriki (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I hope someone fine-tunes the article. I've done all I could. Maybe now that the article is flagged someone will lend their expertise. (Demigod Ron (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

Communism vs. Socialism

"To each according to his contribution is considered by Marxists and other socialists as a characteristic of society directly following the transition to communism."

Shouldn't that read, "directly following the transition to socialism"? Communism is usually described by the mantra, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," as there is no trasfer of wealth, where as socialism is described as an economy in which the worker is paid in relation to his contribution. (To each according to his contribution.) 8bit (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole article should be reworked

This is not anything near Marx' views on labour vs. labour-time vs. labor-power. In the footnotes Marx actually criticizes the idea of labour-money saying that it has nothing to do with reality as while labour-time is limited, it only grants relative social wealth if it is as productive as others'.

Here's the best, shortest quote of Marx' view on the idea from Capital, Vol. 1 Ch. 3.

The question — Why does not money directly represent labour-time, so that a piece of paper may represent, for instance, x hour's labour, is at bottom the same as the question why, given the production of commodities, must products take the form of commodities? This is evident, since their taking the form of commodities implies their differentiation into commodities and money. Or, why cannot private labour—labour for the account of private individuals—be treated as its opposite, immediate social labour? I have elsewhere examined thoroughly the Utopian idea of "labour-money" in a society founded on the production of commodities (1. c., p. 61, scq.). On this point I will only say further, that Owen's "labour- money," for instance, is no more "money" than a ticket for the theatre. Owen presupposes directly associated labour, a form of production that is entirely inconsistent with the production of commodities. The certificate of labour is merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption. But it never enters into Owen's head to presuppose the production of commodities, and at the same time, by juggling with money, to try to evade the necessary conditions of that production.

So the first few quotes are pointless as they are quoting things out of context and make things confusing.207.255.76.92 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the remainder of the article is even more unclear. Lenin's main argument against LaSalle is that rewarding everyone equally will not create equality as people are not equal. The section should be broken up into Marxist views on the issue, non-Marxist socialist views on the issue, and then everything else. What this article tries to do is separate the views on labour in mainstream capitalist and socialist ideologies while making the entire thing very confusing and needlessly long with out-of-context quotes and irrelevant passages. 207.255.76.92 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Marxism isn't or shouldn't be a religion whose doctrine is derived from its founders holy words but rather a living body of thought whose first Speakers he and Engels were. Therefor Marx's view can at most be of minor historical importance in discussion of such a weighty topic, in spite of or perhaps particularly because it has been reduced to a slogan. Lycurgus (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

But of course, it can't be here because that would be OR. It's just a slogan, and the subject matter needn't be limited to the historical context in which it is typically associated. Discussion of Fair division, Contract Theory and the like would be both relevant and non-OR if the subject is to be addressed outside that narrow context. If it is to be restricted to both that context and a narrow interpretation of wiki best practice, then it will necessarily become poorer and/or subject to lack of expertise/research quality. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)