|Part of a series on|
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularised by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Programme. The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will be capable to produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.
Origin of the phrase
The complete paragraph containing Marx's statement of the creed in the Critique of the Gotha Programme is as follows:
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-around 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 crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common within the socialist movement. For example, August Becker in 1844 described it as the basic principle of communism and Louis Blanc used it in 1851. The French socialist Saint-Simonists of the 1820s and 1830s used slightly different slogans such as,"from each according to his ability, to each ability according to its work" or," From each according to his capacity, to each according to his works.” The origin of this phrasing has also been attributed to the French utopian Étienne-Gabriel Morelly, who proposed in his 1755 Code of Nature "Sacred and Fundamental Laws that would tear out the roots of vice and of all the evils of a society", including:
I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.
A similar phrase can be found in the Guilford Covenant in 1639:
We whose names are here underwritten, intending by God's gracious permission to plant ourselves in New England, and if it may be, in the southerly part about Quinnipiack, do faithfully promise each, for ourselves and our families and those that belong to us, that we will, the Lord assisting us, sit down and join ourselves together in one entire plantation, and be helpful each to the other in any common work, according to every man's ability, and as need shall require, and we promise not to desert or leave each other or the plantation, but with the consent of the rest, or the greater part of the company who have entered into this engagement.
Some scholars trace the phrase to the New Testament. In Acts of the Apostles the lifestyle of the community of believers in Jerusalem is described as communal (without individual possession), and uses the phrase "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need" (διεδίδετο δὲ ἑκάστῳ καθότι ἄν τις χρείαν εἶχεν):
Acts 4:32–35: ³² And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. ³³ And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴ Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, ³⁵ And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Other scholars find its origins in "the Roman legal concept of obligation in solidum", in which "everyone assumes responsibility for anyone who cannot pay his debt, and he is conversely responsible for everyone else". James Furner argues:
If x = a disadvantage, and y = action to redress that disadvantage, the principle of solidarity is: if any member of a group acquires x, each member has a duty to perform y (if they can assist). All we then need to add, to get to the fundamental principle of developed communism, is to assume that non-satisfaction of a need is a disadvantage. The corresponding principle of solidarity in respect of need says: if any member of society has an unsatisfied need, each member has a duty to produce its object (if they can). But that is precisely what the principle 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs!' dictates. In Marx's vision, the basic principle of developed communism is a principle of solidarity in respect of need.
Debates on the idea
Marx delineated the specific conditions under which such a creed would be applicable—a society where technology and social organization had substantially eliminated the need for physical labor in the production of things, where "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want". Marx explained his belief that, in such a society, each person would be motivated to work for the good of society despite the absence of a social mechanism compelling them to work, because work would have become a pleasurable and creative activity. Marx intended the initial part of his slogan, "from each according to his ability" to suggest not merely that each person should work as hard as they can, but that each person should best develop their particular talents.
Claiming themselves to be at a "lower stage of communism" (i.e. "socialism", in line with Vladimir Lenin’s terminology), the Soviet Union adapted the formula as: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work (labour investment)". This was incorporated in Article 12 of the 1936 Constitution of the Soviet Union, but described by Leon Trotsky as "This inwardly contradictory, not to say nonsensical, formula".
- Anarchist communism
- Acts 2:44
- Acts 4:32
- Equality of outcome
- He who does not work, neither shall he eat
- Jedem das Seine
- Post-scarcity economy
- Parasitism (social offense)
- Suum cuique
- To each according to his contribution
- Workers of the world, unite!
- Seven deadly sins
- Sloth (deadly sin)
- Marx 1875.
- Fernbach 2010, p. 347.
- Busky, Donald F. (July 20, 2000). Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey. Praeger. p. 4. ISBN 978-0275968861.
Communism would mean free distribution of goods and services. The communist slogan, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' (as opposed to 'work') would then rule
- Schaff 2001, p. 224.
- Walicki 1995, p. 95.
- Marx (1875); Fernbach (2010), p. 347; Schaff (2001), p. 224; Walicki (1995), p. 95
- Becker, August (1844). Was wollen die Kommunisten [What do the communists want] (in German). p. 34 – via Google Books.
- Blanc, Louis (1851). Plus de Girondins [More Girondins] (in French). p. 92 – via Google Books.
- Taylor, Keith (26 November 2013). Political Ideas of the Utopian Socialists. Routledge. p. 193. ISBN 978-1-135-16562-8 – via Google Books.
- Carlisle, Robert B. (1987). The Proffered Crown: Saint-Simonianism and the Doctrine of Hope. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-8018-3512-4 – via Google Books.
- Graeber, David (2013). The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. New York: Spiegel & Grau. pp. 293–294. ISBN 9780812993561. OCLC 810859541.
- Bowie, Norman E. (1971). Towards a new theory of distributive justice. University of Massachusetts Press. p. 82. ISBN 978-0870230851.
- Titelman, Gregory, ed. (1996). Random House dictionary of popular proverbs & sayings. Random House. p. 108. ISBN 978-0679445548.
- "The Guilford Covenant". Bushnell Homestead.
- Baird, Joseph Arthur (1989). The Greed Syndrome: An Ethical Sickness in American Capitalism. Hampshire Books. p. 32. ISBN 978-1877674020.
- Berman, Marshall (2000). Adventures in Marxism. Verso Books. p. 151. ISBN 978-1859843093.
- Furner, James (2018). Marx on Capitalism: The Interaction-Recognition-Antinomy Thesis. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. p. 113. ISBN 978-90-04-38480-4.
- Brunkhorst, Hauke (2005). Solidarity: From Civic Friendship to a Global Legal Community. MIT Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0262025829.
- Marx, Karl. "Part 1". Critique of the Gotha Programme – via Marxists Internet Archive. from Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich. Marx/Engels Selected Works. Vol. Three. pp. 13–30.
- Bli︠a︡khman, Leonid Solomonovich; Shkaratan, Ovseĭ Irmovich (1977). Man at Work: The Scientific and Technological Revolution, the Soviet Working Class and Intelligentsia. Progress. p. 155. Retrieved 2014-06-24.
- Johnson, Hewlett (1968). Searching for light: an autobiography. Joseph. Retrieved 2014-06-24.
- Post, Ken; Wright, Phil (1989). Socialism and underdevelopment. Routledge. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-415-01628-5 – via Google Books.
- Jukes, Geoffrey (1973). The Soviet Union in Asia. University of California Press. p. 225. ISBN 978-0-520-02393-2 – via Google Books.
- Trotsky, Leon (1936). "Chapter 10 The Soviet Union in the Mirror of the New Constitution (section 1)". The Revolution Betrayed – via Marxists Internet Archive.
- Fernbach, David, ed. (2010). Marx: The First International and After. Verso Books. p. 347.
- Marx, Karl (1875). "Part I". Critique of the Gotha Program. Retrieved 2008-07-15 – via Marxists Internet Archive.
- Schaff, Kory (2001). Philosophy and the problems of work: a reader. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 224. ISBN 978-0-7425-0795-1.
- Walicki, Andrzej (1995). Marxism and the leap to the kingdom of freedom: the rise and fall of the Communist utopia. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-8047-2384-8.
- Carens, Joseph (2003). "An Interpretation of the Socialist Principle of Distribution". Social Philosophy & Policy. 20 (1): 145–77. doi:10.1017/S0265052503201072. S2CID 145468454.
- Cohen, G. A. (1995). "Self-ownership, communism, and equality: against the Marxist technological fix". Self-ownership, freedom, and equality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-47751-2.
- Gilabert, Pablo (2015). "The Socialist Principle 'From Each According To Their Abilities, To Each According To Their Needs'". Journal of Social Philosophy. 46 (2): 197–225. doi:10.1111/josp.12096.