# Political Compass #11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 16, 2004, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333 "2004-04-16T09:52:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/1 "2004-04-16T09:52:19Z")
Many political debates here have included references to [The Political Compass](http://www.politicalcompass.org/), which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right _and_ social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US). And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same **including** those who wish to “question the question”, as it were. I will also suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation. It would also be useful when posting in these threads to **give your own “compass reading” in your first post** , by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is **SentientMeat** : Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other [Frequently Asked Questions](http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/faq.html), and there is also a separate thread: [Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248133) Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test _in general_, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them. The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. To date, the threads are: [Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248133) [Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=247383) [#2: My country, right or wrong](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=247908) [#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248375) [#4: Superior racial qualities.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248580) [#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=248753) [#6: Justifying illegal military action.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4721158#post4721158) [#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=249406) [#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=249816) [#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=250658) [#10: Corporate respect of the environment.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=251067) \ ***Proposition #11: \* From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea.** **SentientMeat** (-5.12, -7.28) ticks _Agree_. Again, one for the strong leftists to _Strongly Agree_ with. However, I suspect that everyone who recognises this as a core tenet of Marxism and therefore simply opposes it with _Strong Disagreement_ might be reacting somewhat disproportionally. Taken on its face, I believe that it _is_ a fundamentally good idea. The caveats, of course, are that these words “ability” and “need” must be explained properly “Ability” to do useful, productive work in _any_ capacity is straightforward enough, but my “need” to sit on my sofa playing an expensive guitar all day is rather an _abuse_ of the word. As a negative utilitarian, I believe that “needs” are those basics which ameliorate outright suffering. After all, if a government cannot prevent its people _suffering_, what good is it? > [@](#): > > _Originally by **Karl Popper** (“The Open Society and its Enemies”, 1946)_ > It adds to clarity in the field of ethics if we formulate our demands negatively, _ie._ if we demand the elimination of suffering rather than the promotion of happiness. Similarly, it is helpful to formulate the task of scientific method as the elimination of false theories … rather than the attainment of established truths. An example: One person has the ability to work hard and smart in an exceptionally difficult and useful capacity, is in good health, and has simple tastes. Another is not very intellectually gifted and is prevented from performing physical work by a medical condition. Those who understand pure Marxism might interpret proposition #11 as “both of these people must work as hard as they can whilst enjoying precisely the same standard of living”, which is very difficult to ascribe to. _On its face_, however, the proposition does not go so far. It merely asks us to assess the idea of _somehow_ getting the most from people with ability while ensuring that people with needs are provided for. This is not in itself Marxist by any means; indeed it is perhaps the definition of a welfare state in a free market economy (which I consider no more a contradiction in terms than _eg._ universally providing for the educational “needs” of schoolchildren violates the freedom of the market). I cannot ascribe to Marxism. However, I _can_ ascribe to proposition #11 because I consider that it is clearly _distinct_ from Marxism. ---
**Author:** ![notquitekarpov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@notquitekarpov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/notquitekarpov)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/2 "2004-04-16T10:57:13Z")
[http://www.wethepeople.gov/newsroom/amnesia.html](http://www.wethepeople.gov/newsroom/amnesia.html) According to the poll the above link, a surprisingly high number of Americans apparently believed that Karl Marx’s dogma is included in the US Constitution - 35%, more than believe otherwise (let alone recognise it as a core tenant of Marxism) - some 31%. This level of igorance on the part of American citizens is actually quite refreshing as, to me at least, it suggests they have judged it on its merits and approved of it on those merits alone. Associating it with their Constitution is surely their knee-jerk stamp of approval. I would tick \*\*\*disagree \*\* \* as whilst I concur that a society should protect those in need, I would not necessarily agree that the tax rate of contribution to permit that effort (as opposed to the tax sum contributed) should be weighted against those who simply have the ability to pay it. It is not a \*strong disagreement \* as I may be reading too much into the question - I could have almost as easily given a general _approval_, with only minor differences in interpretation. I see that SentientMeat concentrates more on the \*need \* half than the \*ability \* half of the proposal. Economic: 3. something, Social 5.something ---
**Author:** ![Eureka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/74df32/32.png) [@Eureka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eureka)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/3 "2004-04-16T11:26:54Z")
(-5.38, -0.15) **agree** As a good Christian, I recognize this as one of the fundamental tenents of my faith. (Although, somehow writing it that way seems just a trifle dramatic). I don’t _strongly_ agree because I have misgivings about who gets to decide what my abilities are and what my needs are. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/4 "2004-04-16T12:54:02Z")
(7.75, -2.00) **Strongly Disagree** My abilities and needs are no one’s business but my own. On the same level, your abilities and needs are none of my business. I have no moral obligation to work hard for your sake and you have no moral obligation to work for my sake. I would agree that from a completely practical standpoint that the tenet presented (or rather the OP’s less-than-Marxist interpretation of it) probably makes society as whole function more smoothly, but I don’t feel that it is in anyway a ‘fundamentally good idea’. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/5 "2004-04-16T13:06:28Z")
Your genuine suffering is not “none of my business”, **cckerberos**. I would hope that you didn’t turn a blind eye to _mine_. ---
**Author:** ![Engineer\_Dude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9fc29f/32.png) [@Engineer\_Dude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Engineer_Dude)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/6 "2004-04-16T13:35:13Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Your genuine suffering is not “none of my business”, **cckerberos**. I would hope that you didn’t turn a blind eye to _mine_. As a Christian, I may be more than happy to help you with yoor need (as a personal favor), but as a political compass, I ticked “disagree” because, as a general rule (with exceptions), I’d be pretty upset if the government mandated that I help you with your need. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/7 "2004-04-16T13:39:37Z")
> [@](#): > > I’d be pretty upset if the government mandated that I help you with your need. You believe that **all** of the genuine need _can_ be met without government mandate? ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/8 "2004-04-16T13:51:08Z")
**Jon the Geek** (-3.00/-6.56) ticks agree… then disagree… then agree again… then settles on disagree. **Jon the Geek** (-3.00/-6.56) sits back and watches this discussion to decide what he really thinks. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/9 "2004-04-16T13:54:55Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Your genuine suffering is not “none of my business”, **cckerberos**. I would hope that you didn’t turn a blind eye to _mine_. I probably wouldn’t. But I would help you because I’m a nice person (or at least I try to be), not because I was obligated to assist you. ---
**Author:** ![Engineer\_Dude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9fc29f/32.png) [@Engineer\_Dude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Engineer_Dude)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/10 "2004-04-16T13:58:32Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > You believe that **all** of the genuine need _can_ be met without government mandate? I didn’t say **all** , which is why I ticked “disagree” rather than “strongly disagree”, and I said “with exceptions”. Life-saving health care needs, such as rare vaccinations that normal people can’t afford, can and should be met by the government. But as a general rule, the government shouldn’t mandate helping people with their needs, since this causes people to rely on the government, rather than themselves, family members, and friends. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/11 "2004-04-16T13:58:33Z")
Indeed, I also try to be a nice person. Which is why I recognise that paying tax proportional to my income in order to help those in genuine need is the best approach to minimising suffering. ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/12 "2004-04-16T14:03:37Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > You believe that **all** of the genuine need _can_ be met without government mandate? I can’t speak for **Engineer Dude** (who I see on preview has just responded), but I certainly don’t believe that it can be all met without governmental intervention. I don’t think that that justifies forcing people to help, though. At least from a purely philosophical standpoint, I don’t feel that the end justifies the means. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/13 "2004-04-16T14:08:01Z")
**From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea.** This is a fundamentally good idea in the same way that **“Let them eat cake.”** is. It’s a nice thought. But, totally devoid of any practical application or merit. **Debaser** picks _Stronly Disagree_. * * * > [@SM](#): > > Indeed, I also try to be a nice person. Which is why I recognise that paying tax proportional to my income in order to help those in genuine need is the best approach to minimising suffering. I would argue that people being taxed highly in order to help those in genuine need is the best approach to increase the suffering. By creating a cycle of dependance and subsidizing precisely the behaviour we wish to discourage social programs feed the problems they are designed to fight. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/14 "2004-04-16T14:08:24Z")
> [@](#): > > This level of igorance on the part of American citizens is actually quite refreshing as, to me at least, it suggests they have judged it on its merits and approved of it on those merits alone. Associating it with their Constitution is surely their knee-jerk stamp of approval. Don’t get too hopeful. It probabnly means that in the 3 seconds they took to read that (and honestly, I have some severe doubts about the veracity of these tests) it sounded pleasant and they checked whatever box jumoed out at them. There’s an entire science behind these tests and I’ve come to recognize that you can get them to say almost anything. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/15 "2004-04-16T14:15:18Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think that that justifies forcing people to help, though. This “forcing people to help” phrase crops up a great deal in these kinds of discussions, and I feel it distorts the issue. You, like me, happen to live in a democracy, wherein we accept the rule of law as set down by the elected government. We accept _some level_ of taxation as a reasonable basis for civilisation, even if it is only used to prevent crime, invasion or other coercive force. We do not then complain of being “forced to help people (_ie._ victims of crime) by government mandate”. _Any_ tax is essentially “the government **forcing** you to help people”. I happily pay it because, just as I might find myself a victim of crime in genuine need, I might find myself a victim of _cancer_ in genuine need. “Forced help” is only an objection open to those who advocate utter abolition of any tax whatsoever, _ie._ pure anarchists. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/16 "2004-04-16T14:26:49Z")
> [@](#): > > I would argue that people being taxed highly in order to help those in genuine need is the best approach to increase the suffering. Ah, but is “dependancy” equivalent to genuine _suffering_? I would say not. Sure, if a homeless family are given shelter, food and basic medical treatment then they, for a short time at least, “depend” on it. But what of their **suffering**? I would say that this was _reduced_. Would you draw a genuine equvivalency between “dependence” and “suffering”? And what of education? Is that not “forced help” for something which one does not even genuinely _need_ to survive? Are schoolchildren not in a “cycle of dependence”? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/17 "2004-04-16T14:36:20Z")
**Shodan** (5.00,0.77) - **Disagree**. As **ccerberos** mentions, my abililties and my needs are not subject to approval or disapproval from the government. And, as ever, the notion as presented founders on the hard rocks of motivation. It is relatively easy to persuade me to work on my own behalf. It is still possible to persuade me to work on behalf of my family, or friends. It is relatively more difficult to persuade me to work on behalf of total strangers, at the behest of my government, as well as to persuade me that the goverment is always acting in everyone’s best interest. The temptation is always, since I receive no special benefit from extra work or more effort, is to do the minimum. Why bother starting up my own business if I don’t expect to keep any significant portion of the profits (besides what some bureaucrat decides that I “need”)? And thus the total economic activity is reduced. Which largely explains why the poor and needy in capitalist countries are better off, on the whole, than those in Marxist ones. Even if you are only getting the crumbs, a bigger pie means more crumbs. Another factor is the disincentive to charitable work that exists when the government is expected to do it all. Why should I give that bum a quarter? Why doesn’t the government do it? I only get what I need, he must be getting what he needs, and wasting it. The hell with him. It is not charity to see someone in need, and tell someone else to do something about it. Even, or especially, if that someone is the government. Enlightened self-interest is the only practical basis for an economy. Bill Gates is a lot richer than I am - he has much more than he “needs”. But I am a lot richer than I would be if the government had slapped a 100% tax on all incomes over a “living wage” back when he founded Microsoft. This does not rule out private charity, or even limited government charity. But you cannot found a society on killing the goose that lays golden eggs. Let her hatch most of the eggs, and you get a lot more gold than cutting her open to get the next egg. Even with the best intentions in the world. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Olentzero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90ced4/32.png) [@Olentzero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Olentzero)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/18 "2004-04-16T14:36:43Z")
Economic **-8.25** , Social **-7.69** : Leftist Libertarian. _Agree_. (Like that’s going to be a surprise to anyone.) We should attempt, firstly, to put this phrase into its proper context. It first appeared in Part I of [The Critique of the Gotha Programme](http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm), which was the draft program of a party in Germany called the United Workers’ Party. The relevant passage below clearly indicates that Marx (and Engels) believe that this concept cannot be applied willy-nilly: > [@](#): > > But these defects (_that is, distribution of produced wealth fundamentally based on hours worked rather than actual need_ - **O.** ) are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby. > > 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! Marx believes this is ultimately possible because production, even under capitalism, is more and more collectivized - rather than the individual merchant or small shopkeeper being the norm, production and distribution relies more and more on large groups of people working together in the same place, and coordinating their efforts for greater efficiency. A socialist society - one that consciously runs production collectively - should also be obligated to meet the needs of individuals collectively. This doesn’t mean excessive government regulation and micromanaged bookkeeping, however, since the goal is to attain and maintain a permanent surplus of goods so large that human need could not possibly exhaust it. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/19 "2004-04-16T14:58:50Z")
> [@](#): > > Enlightened self-interest is the only practical basis for an economy. Agreed. And welfarism is the only practical basis for ensuring that _I_ will never find my genuine need unmet. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333/20 "2004-04-16T15:26:10Z")
Economic Left/Right: 6.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.97 Strongly disagree. I think Shodan got it exactly right. This might be a fine way to operate in a family setting, but not in a nation of millions of people. Who is determine those with “ability” and those with “needs”? Look at the countries in recent history that operated on this principle. That should be enough to make each and every one of us disagree with it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/political-compass-11-from-each-according-to-his-ability-to-each-according-to-need/240333.md?page=2)