John, While I concur with your overall direction here, I think you have maligned Marx, despite quoting his words. Yes, the Spanish Republicans did attempt to implement the concept, but in the end did not succeed due to subordinate political and military power. The same had happened in 1871 with the inspiring but doomed Paris Commune. THIS, I think is why Mark referred to a distant time (then) why it could not be successfully implemented, though desirable, because the bourgeoisie had the power to crush the effort. In fact, you allude to just that fact later in your essay in the appeal to conduct an egalitarian revolution against the rich (bourgeoisie) in order to successfully implement the concept! So, you end up making exactly the point Marx already cited.
As for China, a mixed assessment. The "Great Leap Forward" despite its aspirations, turned out to be horribly implemented, with over-zealous middle management making impossible demands on the rural population, mandating what they were incapable of achieving. Eventually after the policy disaster was rectified, the principle was more fully implemented. I spent a month there as part of a bookseller's tour in 1976, and we did not see abject poverty--certainly no homeless people in tents on streets nor visible garbage either. Clearly people were not wealthy, but everyone by then had enough to survive. Jon
I "liked" your reply because it makes for a good conversation. Let me try to reply to your points.
#1. The words of Marx that i quoted say that the "From each according..." principle cannot be "inscribed on the banners of society" until 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." Notice that Marx is NOT saying anything here about the need to first remove the bourgeoisie from power so that people will be free from that power to implement the "From each according..." principle. No! he is saying that even after the bourgeoisie has been removed from power (which is the socialist stage in the Marxist theory) it still is not the time to implement "From each..." because the economy will not be sufficiently productive. In fact, even in the early phases of COMMUNIST (i.e. AFTER the socialist stage) society it STILL is not yet time to implement "From each..." So I don't think you are correct in saying that Marx's view is that as soon as possible, i.e., as soon as the bourgeoisie are removed from power, that then is the time to implement "From each according..." What do you think?
#2. Regarding China. First, the Communist Party of China is following Marxism. That party requires students at all levels of education to study Marxism, as detailed in my article's section on China at https://www.pdrboston.org/communism-no-socialism-no . The CPC's promotion of capitalism instead of the "From each according..." principle is in keeping with Marxism, as is evidenced by Karl Marx's article (read it at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm ) explaining why British Imperialism in India, though undeniably brutal, was NECESSARY. His words on this point are:
"England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution."
Chinese capitalism, which is also undeniably brutal as I show in my article at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/xi-jinpings-and-joe-bidens-good-cop?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web , is in perfect keeping with Marxism because according to Marxism the brutality of capitalism is not the key point; the key point is the need to develop the means of production first by capitalism until capitalism itself becomes a fetter to further development of those means of production. And the means of production--after capitalism--must continue to be developed (without using the "From each according...." principle but rather the use instead of inequality to motivate hard work by the workers) until ONLY in a HIGHER phase of COMMUNISM can the "From each according..." principle be implemented ("inscribed on the banners...."). What do you think?
I think it is important to see that Marxism--i.e., the Marxist "science of social change" (NOT the many good ideas that were around before Karl Marx was born, which I discuss at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/great-ideas-that-were-around-long?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web )--is wrong, and dangerous because it leads to profoundly anti-democratic practice by Marxist regimes and even horrible practices by Marxists who are out of power (such as Karl Marx himself when he wrote in defense of British Imperialism in India.)
I think it is a big mistake to defend the wrong and dangerous Marxist theory of social change by pointing to the fact that Marx was correct in agreeing with many good ideas that were around before he was born--such as that there is class conflict and the need for revolution. Defending the Marxist theory of social change on the grounds that Marx agreed with these good old ideas would be like defending the leader of Germany in 1933-45 on the grounds that he agreed that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and designed (so they say) the Volkswagon automobile and built good highways in Germany and lowered unemployment there too--all true. This is like the (apocryphal?) story of when U.S. General (of troops in Vietnam) Westmoreland years after the Vietnam War was over met with Vietnam top general during the war Giap and told him, "You know, during the entire war we never lost a battle with you" and Giap replied, "True. But irrelevant."
Speaking of "irrelevant," what is relevant about the fact that the fascist General Franco (with the help, by the way, of Stalin) defeated the Spanish revolutionaries in 1939? Yes, the revolutionaries (who called themselves anarchists) made some fatal mistakes (that I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/anarchism ) but this does not take away from the fact that not only did they implement "From each according..." but also increased economic production when they did it (as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-outproduces-capitali ) which shows that Marx was wrong.
A relatively recent attempt to satisfy this idea is how things are shared on the kibbutz. In the early days of this social institution, the kibbutzim were so poor that they virtually were forced to use common showers, dormitories, dining halls, and child's caring centers, where the parents participated by working elsewhere and seeing their children for only a few hours each day (if that). As time passed and the wealth accumulated, these institutions were able to provide individual homes, private vehicles and relaxed access to farm produce for private use, and the schools were not full-time child-raising arrangements. So the varied needs of the kibbutz members became so widely spread that the Marxian principle was no longer practical. The member's needs were so different that it was impossible to balance them for equality in worth and even money became a useful way for a limited kind of equality in sharing. What evolved was the realization that from each according to ability and to each as per need. was not a practical way for sharing folks to live in villages together and today most kibbutzim have compromised greatly away from this older theory of sharing. In other words theoretical socialism (even when communalism is only partial), does simply not work in practice.
People are unequal in both their talents and in their basic necessities. It seems to me that this idea of sharing would better expressed were it to be the sharing of opportunities that are provided by the natural resources and in particular the benefits possible depending on where you live. Those that live in a wealthy neighborhood should pay more tax than those whose homes are far away from the centers of the more civilized parts of town.
First, if you had read my article more carefully you would have seen that the "From each according..." principle is NOT what Marx would have told the people in the Kibbutz do implement, on the contrary; hence it is mistaken for you to refer to it as "the Marxian principle."
Second, you seem not to grasp that the "From each according..." principle is NOT at all based on "balancing equality of worth"; such "balancing" is the basis of the the opposite principle of "You can only have what you can afford to buy", i.e., exchanging equal value for equal value, which is the principle that today's capitalism is based upon. Thus the fact that this "balancing equality of worth...principle was no longer practical" was a reason FOR implementing the "From each according..." principle and NOT a reason for abandoning it. I think you are very confused about all of this, frankly. Please read my "Why Abolish the Use of Money" to get clarified: https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/why-abolish-the-use-of-money?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web .
John, While I concur with your overall direction here, I think you have maligned Marx, despite quoting his words. Yes, the Spanish Republicans did attempt to implement the concept, but in the end did not succeed due to subordinate political and military power. The same had happened in 1871 with the inspiring but doomed Paris Commune. THIS, I think is why Mark referred to a distant time (then) why it could not be successfully implemented, though desirable, because the bourgeoisie had the power to crush the effort. In fact, you allude to just that fact later in your essay in the appeal to conduct an egalitarian revolution against the rich (bourgeoisie) in order to successfully implement the concept! So, you end up making exactly the point Marx already cited.
As for China, a mixed assessment. The "Great Leap Forward" despite its aspirations, turned out to be horribly implemented, with over-zealous middle management making impossible demands on the rural population, mandating what they were incapable of achieving. Eventually after the policy disaster was rectified, the principle was more fully implemented. I spent a month there as part of a bookseller's tour in 1976, and we did not see abject poverty--certainly no homeless people in tents on streets nor visible garbage either. Clearly people were not wealthy, but everyone by then had enough to survive. Jon
I "liked" your reply because it makes for a good conversation. Let me try to reply to your points.
#1. The words of Marx that i quoted say that the "From each according..." principle cannot be "inscribed on the banners of society" until 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." Notice that Marx is NOT saying anything here about the need to first remove the bourgeoisie from power so that people will be free from that power to implement the "From each according..." principle. No! he is saying that even after the bourgeoisie has been removed from power (which is the socialist stage in the Marxist theory) it still is not the time to implement "From each..." because the economy will not be sufficiently productive. In fact, even in the early phases of COMMUNIST (i.e. AFTER the socialist stage) society it STILL is not yet time to implement "From each..." So I don't think you are correct in saying that Marx's view is that as soon as possible, i.e., as soon as the bourgeoisie are removed from power, that then is the time to implement "From each according..." What do you think?
#2. Regarding China. First, the Communist Party of China is following Marxism. That party requires students at all levels of education to study Marxism, as detailed in my article's section on China at https://www.pdrboston.org/communism-no-socialism-no . The CPC's promotion of capitalism instead of the "From each according..." principle is in keeping with Marxism, as is evidenced by Karl Marx's article (read it at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/25.htm ) explaining why British Imperialism in India, though undeniably brutal, was NECESSARY. His words on this point are:
"England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindostan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfil its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not, whatever may have been the crimes of England she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution."
Chinese capitalism, which is also undeniably brutal as I show in my article at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/xi-jinpings-and-joe-bidens-good-cop?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web , is in perfect keeping with Marxism because according to Marxism the brutality of capitalism is not the key point; the key point is the need to develop the means of production first by capitalism until capitalism itself becomes a fetter to further development of those means of production. And the means of production--after capitalism--must continue to be developed (without using the "From each according...." principle but rather the use instead of inequality to motivate hard work by the workers) until ONLY in a HIGHER phase of COMMUNISM can the "From each according..." principle be implemented ("inscribed on the banners...."). What do you think?
I think it is important to see that Marxism--i.e., the Marxist "science of social change" (NOT the many good ideas that were around before Karl Marx was born, which I discuss at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/great-ideas-that-were-around-long?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web )--is wrong, and dangerous because it leads to profoundly anti-democratic practice by Marxist regimes and even horrible practices by Marxists who are out of power (such as Karl Marx himself when he wrote in defense of British Imperialism in India.)
I think it is a big mistake to defend the wrong and dangerous Marxist theory of social change by pointing to the fact that Marx was correct in agreeing with many good ideas that were around before he was born--such as that there is class conflict and the need for revolution. Defending the Marxist theory of social change on the grounds that Marx agreed with these good old ideas would be like defending the leader of Germany in 1933-45 on the grounds that he agreed that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and designed (so they say) the Volkswagon automobile and built good highways in Germany and lowered unemployment there too--all true. This is like the (apocryphal?) story of when U.S. General (of troops in Vietnam) Westmoreland years after the Vietnam War was over met with Vietnam top general during the war Giap and told him, "You know, during the entire war we never lost a battle with you" and Giap replied, "True. But irrelevant."
Speaking of "irrelevant," what is relevant about the fact that the fascist General Franco (with the help, by the way, of Stalin) defeated the Spanish revolutionaries in 1939? Yes, the revolutionaries (who called themselves anarchists) made some fatal mistakes (that I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/anarchism ) but this does not take away from the fact that not only did they implement "From each according..." but also increased economic production when they did it (as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/egalitarianism-outproduces-capitali ) which shows that Marx was wrong.
A relatively recent attempt to satisfy this idea is how things are shared on the kibbutz. In the early days of this social institution, the kibbutzim were so poor that they virtually were forced to use common showers, dormitories, dining halls, and child's caring centers, where the parents participated by working elsewhere and seeing their children for only a few hours each day (if that). As time passed and the wealth accumulated, these institutions were able to provide individual homes, private vehicles and relaxed access to farm produce for private use, and the schools were not full-time child-raising arrangements. So the varied needs of the kibbutz members became so widely spread that the Marxian principle was no longer practical. The member's needs were so different that it was impossible to balance them for equality in worth and even money became a useful way for a limited kind of equality in sharing. What evolved was the realization that from each according to ability and to each as per need. was not a practical way for sharing folks to live in villages together and today most kibbutzim have compromised greatly away from this older theory of sharing. In other words theoretical socialism (even when communalism is only partial), does simply not work in practice.
People are unequal in both their talents and in their basic necessities. It seems to me that this idea of sharing would better expressed were it to be the sharing of opportunities that are provided by the natural resources and in particular the benefits possible depending on where you live. Those that live in a wealthy neighborhood should pay more tax than those whose homes are far away from the centers of the more civilized parts of town.
First, if you had read my article more carefully you would have seen that the "From each according..." principle is NOT what Marx would have told the people in the Kibbutz do implement, on the contrary; hence it is mistaken for you to refer to it as "the Marxian principle."
Second, you seem not to grasp that the "From each according..." principle is NOT at all based on "balancing equality of worth"; such "balancing" is the basis of the the opposite principle of "You can only have what you can afford to buy", i.e., exchanging equal value for equal value, which is the principle that today's capitalism is based upon. Thus the fact that this "balancing equality of worth...principle was no longer practical" was a reason FOR implementing the "From each according..." principle and NOT a reason for abandoning it. I think you are very confused about all of this, frankly. Please read my "Why Abolish the Use of Money" to get clarified: https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/why-abolish-the-use-of-money?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web .