"DOUBLING DOWN ON DUTY" ENDNOTES
[1]. French socialist Louis Blanc is generally credited with, in the 1840s, creating the specific wording for socialism's most famous saying, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," though another French socialist, Étienne Cabet, also began using this expression at roughly the same time. However, what cemented this saying's place as Socialist Saying #1 was Karl Marx adopting it as his own writing that socialist society would eventually "inscribe on its banners, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'"
Below is a citation to one instance of Blanc using the saying in the 1840s. Further below is a citation to Marx adopting Blanc's expression as his own.
"Chacun produise selon son aptitude et ses forces, que chacun consomme selon ses besoins." Louis Blanc, Nouveau discours de M. Louis Blanc sur l'organisation du travail devant l'assemblée générale des délègues des travailleurs (Paris: Commission du Gouvernement Pour Travailleurs, 1848), 10.
Karl Marx "Critique of the Gotha Program," in Robert Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972), 383.
[2]. As detailed in endnote 1 above, socialists began using the expression "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" over 170 years ago in the 1840s. And it was Karl Marx's adopting this slogan as his own (over 145 years ago), that propelled it into permanent first place among socialist axioms.
[3]. Michael Steven Smith, "Law in a Socialist USA," in Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA, ed. Frances Goldin, Debby Smith, and Michael Steven Smith (New York: Harper Perennial, 2014), 58.
[4]. Democratic Socialists of America founder Michael Harrington says that the goal of today's socialism remains creating a society based on socialism's 170-year-old formula "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." (Michael Harrington, "What Socialists Would Do in America—If They Could" Dissent, Fall 1978, 445.)
Harrington also makes it clear that he considers this socialism's defining promise. He writes that "if abundance is not possible, then neither is socialism, and there's no reformulation that can avoid that fact." (Michael Harrington, Socialism [New York: Saturday Review Press, 1970], 347).
Harrington says that socialism is impossible without "abundance." In socialist theory, "abundance" has a specific meaning. It means such massive production of goods and services that they can be provided to the world's population for free, fulfilling the promise of "to each according to their need." In socialist theory, a world of "abundance" is the precondition for a world based on "to each according to their need."
Harrington tells us that socialism itself is impossible without a world of abundance, in other words, a world that boosts production levels massively making it possible to fulfill socialism's promise of a world based on "to each according to their needs."
As Harrington explains, if achieving this goal is impossible, then so is socialism "and there is no reformulation that can avoid this fact." Thus, achieving socialism is itself defined by achieving a world based on "to each according to their needs."
See the Red Flags Press paper "The Secret Sauce of Socialism" for a detailed look at how socialists say "abundance" and, as Karl Marx put it, "constant over-production" are required for socialism to create a world of "to each according to their need."
[5]. Edward Nell and Onara Nell, "On Justice under Socialism," Dissent, Summer 1972.
[6]. Two examples of socialists explaining that "to each according to their needs" means free everything for all forever:
John Crump explains that "to each according to their needs" means that "people will be free to take whatever they choose … without making payment." (John Crump, "The Thin Red Line: Non-Market Socialism in the Twentieth Century," in Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, ed. Maximilien Rubel and John Crump [London: Macmillan Press, 1987], 43).
And Tatah Mentan explains "individuals will have free access to what is produced according to self-defined needs" (Tatah Mentah, Socialism, The Only Practical Alternative to Contemporary Capitalism [Mankon: Langaa Research & Publishing, 2012], 36.)
For a more complete review of socialists explaining that a world based on "to each according to their ability" means a world in which all goods and services are free worldwide, see Red Flags Press paper "The Secret Sauce of Socialism."
[7]. Bernard Bykhovsky, The Individual and Society (Moscow: Novosty Press Agency Publishing House, 1965), 25.
[8]. Fidel Castro, "Fidel Castro Speaks at Moncada Anniversary Ceremonies [July 27, 1973]," Latin America Network Information Center, Castro Speech Database, accessed December 17, 2020, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1973/19730727.html.
[9]. John E. Roemer, Egalitarian Perspectives: Essays in Philosophical Economics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996), 28.
[10]. Bertell Ollman, "Market Mystification in Capitalist and Market Socialist Societies, in Market Socialism: The Debate among Socialists, ed. Bertell Ollman (New York: Routledge, 1998), 117.
[11]. Leo Huberman, The Truth about Socialism (New York: Lear Publishers, 1950), 198.
[12]. David S. Pena, "You Might Be a Marxist If … You Believe in From Each According to Their Abilities, to Each According to Their Needs" April 4, 2011, http://www.politicalaffairs.net/you-might-be-a-marxist-if-you-believe-in-from-each-according-to-their-abilities-to-each-according-to-their-needs/
[13]. 1977 U.S.S.R. Const. ch. 1 art. 14, Bucknell University, accessed December 17, 2020, https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons01.html#chap01. Emphasis added.
[14]. "Plus un homme peut, plus il doit. … D'où l'axiome: De chacun, selon ses facultés. Là est le DEVOIR." Louis Blanc, La Historie de la Révolution de 1848, vol. 1 (Paris: C. Marpon, 1880), 148.
[15]. Nazi leader Adolph Hitler was particularly fond of referring to "the community." For example, he references "the community" dozens of times in his notorious work Mein Kampf (My Struggle). Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. Ralph Manheim (Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1943).
[16]. Sidney Webb, one of the founders of the noted British socialist organizations, The Fabian Society, writes: "The perfect and fitting development of each individual is not necessarily the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the best possible way, of his humble function in the great social machine." Sidney Webb, "The Historic Basis of Socialism," in Fabian Essays in Socialism—American Edition, Bernard Shaw, ed., H. G. Wilshire, American Edition ed.,(New York: Humboldt Publishing Co., 1891), 38.
[17]. Socialist great Ernesto "Che" Guevara says that socialism will bring us happiness: "Man once again regains the old sense of happiness in work, the happiness of fulfilling a duty, of feeling himself important within the social mechanism. He becomes happy to feel himself a cog in the wheel, a cog which has its own characteristics and is necessary although not indispensable, to the production process, a conscious cog." Ernest "Che" Guevara, "On Creating a New Attitude [August 15, 1964]" in Venceremos! The Speeches and Writings of Che Guevara, ed. John Gerassi (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968), 337. See also RFP paper "'The Happiness of Fulfilling a Duty.'"
[18]. Nell and Nell, "On Justice under Socialism," 483.
[19]. To see numerous examples of socialist greats attacking slackers as "thieves," "parasites," and "exploiters" and learn more about the reasons they do, see the Red Flags Press paper and video series "Why Socialism Says Slacking Is Theft."
[20]. "Il y a des fainéants, c'est-à-dire des voleurs." Henri de Saint Simon, Œuvres de Saint-Simon & d'Enfantin, vol. 18 (Paris: E. Dentu, 1868), 130. "Le fainéant" is, in today's English, "the slacker."
[21]. Fidel Castro, "Julio Scherer Garcia Interview with Fidel Castro [Mexico City Proceso, September 21, 1981]," Latin America Network Information Center, Castro Speech Database, accessed April 3, 2020, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1981/19810921.html.
[22]. How could socialist Cuba possibly be even further away from achieving the dream of a socialist society based on "to each according to their needs" after 35 additional years of laying "the bricks of socialism"?
Because humankind evolves and develops new needs—even more needs that socialist Cuba was unwilling or unable to fulfill. What counts as a need doesn't stand still, as Karl Marx himself recognized and endorsed, promising that socialism was to be a society that supplied a rich and growing set of needs, not a society based on rationing and in which the government defines needs. (For details on Marx's views, see Red Flags Press paper "The Secret Sauce of Socialism.")
Over the course of the decades following Castro's speech, capitalist society raised the bar in terms of human needs, developing any number of new products that improved our lives. These represented yet more products that socialist Cuba did not deliver to its citizenry, thereby pushing Cuba even further away from achieving the goal of "to each according to their need" than it had been when Castro spoke in 1981.
One example of the dozens that could be provided:
In August 1981, a month before the Castro gave the speech which this quote appears, the very first IBM PC was released. Soon, in capitalist society, personal computers were ubiquitous, making a fundamental difference in our lives. Consider just this one of the many dramatically positive results of the personal computing revolution: the word-processing application with an undo function replacing the typewriter of old with its carbon paper and White Out to fix errors.
How did socialist Cuba do when it came to supplying its citizens with personal computers? In Cuba, owning a personal computer was illegal until … until 2008. 2008—that's 27 years—an entire human generation—after the IBM PC was released. By 2008, hundreds of millions of individuals in capitalist society owned personal computers. And when computers finally became legal and available to purchase in Cuba, they were far more expensive than their capitalist equivalent, suppressing adoption.
See Mark Frank, "Cuba lifts ban on computer and DVD player sales," (March 13, 2008) Reuters, accessed January 13, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cuba-reforms/cuba-lifts-ban-on-computer-and-dvd-player-sales-idUSN1329909720080313.
[23]. "In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of individuals under division of labour, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labour, has vanished ; after labour, from a mere means of life, has itself become the prime necessity of life ; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners ; from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
Karl Marx "Critique of the Gotha Program," in Robert Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels Reader (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972), 383. Emphasis added.
Note that here Marx references a "higher phase of communist society." As socialists report themselves, Marx used the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably and did not distinguish between them. As this is the way Marx used these two words, it's the way most knowledgeable socialists do also. And, as Marx is considered a democratic socialist, one can obviously be a democratic socialist while also considering oneself a communist as Marx did. To learn more, see Red Flags Press papers "Socialism? Communism? What's the Difference" and "Karl Marx, 'Democratic Socialist.'"
[24]. To learn why socialism sees compulsory duty as morally correct, see Red Flags Press paper "The Ripple Effects of Socialist Duty."
[25]. To learn how socialism has been designed so that it requires compulsory duty to function, see Red Flags Press paper "The Ripple Effects of Socialist Duty."
[26]. Why does socialism promise to even overproduce beyond what is required to deliver a world of free everything for all, but so as to have some left over for a rainy day? Socialist theory says this is necessary as a form of insurance so a socialist society could deal with unexpected natural disasters that interrupted production. Without a buffer for such "rainy days," a natural disaster could bring the return of scarcity, which socialist theory in turn says could prompt the return of capitalism. See end note 30 below for details on Marx calling for "constant over-production" as insurance.
[27]. Tatah Mentah, Socialism, The Only Practical Alternative, 36.
[28]. Two examples of socialists explaining that "to each according to their needs" means free everything for all forever:
John Crump explains that "to each according to their needs" means that "people will be free to take whatever they choose … without making payment." (John Crump, "The Thin Red Line: Non-Market Socialism in the Twentieth Century," in Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, ed. Maximilien Rubel and John Crump [London: Macmillan Press, 1987], 43).
And Tatah Mentan explains "individuals will have free access to what is produced according to self-defined needs" (Tatah Mentan, Socialism, The Only Practical Alternative, 36.)
[29]. Actual attempts to implement socialist economics have demonstrated that it suppresses productivity and overall production rather than boosting it dramatically as socialist theory assumes. The socialist critique of capitalism led socialists to believe not that socialism would boost production relative to capitalism, but also that, when socialist society took over from the "anarchy" of capitalism, running the socialist economy would be a piece of cake.
Running the socialist economy was going to be "as easy as play" and would amount to "extraordinarily simple operations" involving nothing more than knowing "the four rules of arithmetic." So claimed even such socialist greats as August Bebel and Vladimir Lenin:
"In a socialized society matters are fully regulated; society is held in fraternal bonds. Everything is done in order; there, it is an easy matter to gauge demand. With a little experience, the thing is easy as play." (August Bebel, Woman Under Socialism, trans. Daniel De Leon, [New York: Schocken Books, 1971], 278.) Emphasis added.
"The accounting and control necessary for this ["setting up the functioning" of production in socialist society] have been simplified by capitalism to an extreme and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations—which any literate person can perform—of checking and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing receipts." (Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution, 2nd Ed. [London: Laurence & Wishart, 1943], 117-118.) Emphasis added.
The staggering misunderstanding of economics at the heart of socialist theory ended up costing tens of millions their lives. For example, the so-called Great Leap Forward in socialist China resulted in the deaths of tens of millions—the vast majority of these via starvation. For details, see Frank Dikötter's Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962 (New York: Walker & Co., 2010).
And a present-day example of the negative results of socialist economics is found in Venezuela. Writing in the New York Times, reporter Anatoly Kurmanaev explains: "Venezuela's fall is the single largest economic collapse outside of war in at least 45 years" with gross domestic product dropping by over 60% since 2013. ("Venezuela's Collapse Is the Worst Outside of War in Decades, Economists Say," accessed January 16, 2021, nytimes.com/2019/05/17/world/americas/venezuela-economy.html.)
[30]. Socialist theory explains that creating a world based on "to each according to their need" requires a state of "abundance," a state in which there is supply that exceeds demand. With the exception of a handful of things (like air) that are abundantly available in nature, all other goods and services must be overproduced to create the oversupply required for free distribution of goods. It's essential to also recall that socialist theory says every good and service is to be free. Bread isn't going to be made abundant by suppressing production of beer (which is made from the same ingredients as bread). Rather, bread and beer and every other needed thing are to all be overproduced and thus free.
Here Karl Marx explains that until the quantity available exceeds demand, it will always remain a scarce product:
Take a product that is more than scarce, unique of its kind if you will: this unique product will be more than abundant, it will be superfluous, if there is no demand for it. On the other hand, take a product multiplied into millions, it will always be scarce if it does not satisfy the demand, that is, if there is too great a demand. [Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954), 37.]
[31]. In the second volume of his famous Capital, Marx speaks of socialist society requiring "constant over-production" and "perpetual relative over-production," as a form of insurance against "unusual destruction caused by accidents and natural forces" and also saying that "over-production of this kind is equivalent to control by the [socialist] society over the objective means of its own reproduction."
"constant over-production" as insurance: [Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 2, David Fernbach, trans., (London: Penguin Classics, 1992), 256-257.]
"perpetual relative over-production" as essential to socialist society: Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, 544.
[32]. "Constant over-production": Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, 256-257. Perpetual relative over-production": Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, 544.
[33]. Socialists today live by the motto "system change not climate change" and argue that climate change makes socialism necessary. As one example, a book with that very title "System Change not Climate Change—A Revolutionary Response to Environmental Crisis," ed. Martin Empson (London: Booksmarks Publications, 2019).
But contrary to the claims of those selling socialism, the climate crisis doesn't make socialism necessary; it makes a world of "to each according to their need" and thus socialism itself a virtual impossibility.
The reality is, of course, that there hasn't been a single problem for the last two centuries that socialists didn't claim their philosophy was the solution to. But claiming that socialism is the solution to climate change is particularly unethical because any knowledgeable socialist knows that climate change in fact makes socialism effectively impossible—by the strictures of socialist theory and by what socialist thinkers say themselves.
Socialist theory says that socialism is literally impossible unless a world of "abundance" (what socialists have also referred to as "superabundance," "opulent abundance" and "limitless abundance") and what Marx called "constant over-production" can be achieved. For details, see Red Flags Press paper "The Secret Sauce of Socialism" for details.
[34]. Fidel Castro, "Fidel Castro Addresses Cuban Workers Congress [November 16, 1973]," Latin America Network Information Center, Castro Speech Database, accessed June 15, 2020, http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1973/19731116.html.