Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Risk vs. Reward (who gets what under socialism)
Message-ID: <1092@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 1-Apr-85 22:33:43 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.1092
Posted: Mon Apr  1 22:33:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Apr-85 00:43:20 EST
References: <389@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 47

>Carnes quoting Marx:
"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-round development of the individual, and all the springs of
cooperative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then can the narrow
horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society
inscribe on its banner:  From each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs!  [This was an old socialist slogan before
Marx used it here.] ..."
>

I recall an earlier message in which I commented that division
of labor was "anathema to Marx", and Richard demurred.  I would
like to point out that this passage bolsters my position.  My 
understanding of Marx's position is that he thought the worker
"alienated" by the mode of production where the worker never 
designed and built a whole device, but endlessly repeated a
small part of the operation (which was thereby meaningless to him).

The passage makes it clear that "from each according to his
abilities, to each according to his needs" will not be valid
until the following things occur:

> the division of labor ... has vanished

> labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want

> the productive forces have also increased with the
>  all-round development of the individual

> all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly

What kind of society would this be?  Each person would design and build
whole doofusses and never merely be a part of a process;  workers
would only do what they wanted to, or conversely, only want to do
"the right thing"; would be mental, physical, esthetic, and spiritual
giants in modern-day terms (they'd have to be to build whole skyscrapers
singlehandedly); and everything would work better with no coercion.

Those of you who have been paying attention for the past few months
will instantly recognise the standard Libertarian paradise, (Model 2
Mark 1).

--JoSH