Each by abilities, to each by needs

"From each according to ability, to each according to need"

At one time, American sociologists conducted a survey in the U.S. and ... sounded the alarm
The majority of respondents approve of the slogan "From each according to ability, to each according to need". But this is the principle of communism, formulated by K. Marx! [1]. In the U.S., communist sentiments are spreading! Then there was conducted another survey and ... everybody calmed down. The majority of respondents were sure that these words were taken from the US Constitution [11].
In our age of loud words and advertising slogans, such words made no one think. But K. Marx is not an advertiser or a publicist, but a scientist. Scientists are characterized by the accuracy of wording. The words spoken by scientists should be understood not as we perceive advertising, but literally.
And such a society differs from our current one radically. The author of this article claims that such a society will be more reasonable and humane than our present one.
And if you think about the literal meaning of this principle, then questions must necessarily arise.

The first question is to define more precisely what is meant. It is formulated as follows: "according to needs" - and how to define needs?

If I say I need a helicopter, or I need a mountain of gold? Or  I need a skyscraper palace? Who will determine how reasonable my needs are? If nobody, one day my demands  will exceed the capabilities of society. If there is such an official - then he will need to be given on his paw to recognize my request as a reasonable need ...
In both cases, such a society is doomed.

But the phrase " by needs" may simply be imperfect or unusual. In order to convey the essence of such a system, it would be better to say "distribution according to the buffet principle" (Swedish table, as it is said in Russian literally). Society produces so much that everything is enough for everyone. Everyone takes what they need - according to their needs. From the amount, from which society can offer everyone.
For example, one takes a car and the other a bicycle. But the person who takes a bicycle does not take it out of poverty, but because it could take a car, but it is not needed, it would be just rubbish for him, which, unlike today's society, will not be sold by anyone and there is no need for it.
Nobody asks anybody if he really needs it. Everyone simply takes by right of a member of this society). And it is available at any moment. There is no need to make stocks "just in case". There is no need to make reserves "for a rainy day". Society keeps records of resources and needs. If there is a catastrophic situation, the society will take care of the victims. And if the situation is so catastrophic that there are not enough reserves for the victims, the society will redistribute the existing ones, provide for those who need them, taking away, if necessary, from those who - by the standards of the situation - have an excess
Of course, if we are talking about products that require a huge amount of labor and resources, they are made to order.
But that can be at everyone - it is possible to order, having chosen thus suitable model, the size, colour, a style, ... and can be, the variant "under the individual order" when the complete set of drawings gives the customer, or if he is the dilettante, engineers-designers of the enterprise-manufacturer can help him with drawing.

The production of material goods to meet all needs is included in the production plan. The number of people in the country is known. The use of computers, networks, and databases makes planning opportunities fantastically limitless [6]. This is what the USSR lacked, and what we have.
Poverty remains in the barbaric past. All reasonable needs will be met
This is, in short, the answer to the question of what needs are we talking about in the famous formula K. Marx.

Then the second question is, how is it possible?

There is an economic crisis in the world. More and more people are becoming poor. In other words, the economy is failing to provide people with even the most basic necessities. And K. Marx and the author of this article talk about meeting all the needs.
Maybe we are talking about a very distant future, when the productive forces will reach such a high level of development that the economy will be able to eliminate poverty?

And what level of development will be sufficient for this?
Can we imagine that today? There is a clear answer to this question

Here's an illustrative historical fact.
Pavel Lazarenko, who escaped from Ukraine with billions of dollars stolen, was arrested by Interpol in Europe. He bought off justice in the amount of 6 million Swiss francs.
Few people remember what happened afterwards. A week later, an earthquake struck China and one of the provinces was destroyed. The European Union scrapped China with help in the amount of ... 100 thousand Swiss francs. Let's compare these figures! 6 million/100 thousand =60... One Ukrainian crook gives bribes in the amount 60 times higher than the one that the union of the richest countries in the world scraping to help the country, in which the whole province was destroyed by the earthquake! Does China have so many provinces?  By the way, Lazarenko is not Abbot Faria of the Count of Monte Cristo, who was ready to give all his wealth for freedom... After he had given a bribe of such a monstrous size that it would have been enough to rebuild 60 (!) Chinese provinces, he settled in the U.S., where he acquired... No, not a cheap bed and breakfast in a cheap apartment, but the most expensive villa in the richest country in the world!
How many of these crooks are only in Ukraine!... And how many all over the world!...
What justifies the economic system that generates such a monstrous and irrational distribution of material resources?
In short, not a lack, but an unreasonable distribution in excess is the true cause of poverty.

Under the current system, no level of production development can ensure the elimination of poverty. In rich countries, the population lives more prosperously only at the expense of poverty in poor countries. But it is not because something is not produced enough, and it is not enough for everyone.

Inefficient distribution is not the only vice of the current system. The system (of regulation) of production is also unreasonable

Let's look at the current system.

Currently, there are several major global industrial centers:
- USA
- Western Europe
- China
- Russia
- South Korea, Japan, Ukraine.

If all but one of these centres were to disappear, any of these industrial centres would be enough to meet the needs of the world.
But commodity-money relations require expanding production and selling new goods. And the era of great geographical discoveries is over, there are no more white spots on the maps, and the once immense and unknown Earth has turned out to be a small, cramped ball. All consumers are known, all markets are redistributed. Everyone produces more than they need than they can sell.

And yet poverty remains one of the most important problems. Is it because there are few producers and they are not produced enough? No! Economic crises are "useful" because they "revitalize" the economy by helping it to get rid of "inefficient" enterprises. And what is "inefficient"? Perhaps, products with higher quality than competitors are produced. But the company's management has set a price too high, saved too much on advertising, etc. ... and the company's products were bought in too small quantities, and the production did not pay for itself... Quality products are thrown into the landfill because there is no one else to produce spare parts for their repair... Employees have not been paid for their work... everyone worked in vain...

Ironically, the problem is not the lack of productive forces in the society, or their "inefficiency", but the fact that the society creates productive forces, but fails to manage to use them...

An overproduction also leads to an overproduction of producers. Manufacturers interfere with each other. That is why the crisis, as a result of which some of the enterprises go bankrupt, turns out to be beneficial for the economy, and the war is effective as an anti-crisis measure.
That is, the threat of war is becoming increasingly urgent, no matter what ideals politicians proclaim. After all, war allows to destroy the excess of productive forces, in addition, the war creates a steady demand: the war does not have too many weapons.
An oversupply of weapons also leads to an oversupply of labour.
Even qualified specialists are not valued, and employers can easily throw themselves at them. There are many articles on the Internet about why it is sometimes harder for a qualified specialist to find a job than for an inexperienced newcomer who does not claim a high level of payment, and what to do with it for a job seeker. (One such article is published on the HeadHunter website of employers and job seekers [7])
People are forced to compete desperately so they don't lose their jobs. And everything is in vain - the standard of living will only get worse. Hence the stress, the increase in cases of suicide and madness. The supply of labor force exceeds the demand, it becomes too cheap, and poverty remains one of the most important problems.
Environmental problems are also rooted not so much in production technologies as in the organization of society. Competition makes us save money on everything, but we need to produce more and more. As a result, natural resources are extracted in barbaric ways, because  refusing environmental protection measures save(s) money. Description of other problems can be found at the works of E. Fromm in [3]. The roots of all modern problems - including the problems of human health and nature - in the unreasonable structure of society.


On the other hand, what does distribution by need, by order, mean? How much to produce becomes clear. There is no need to produce more, no need for advertising and marketing, there is no danger that the products will not be bought, and if they are rejected, it will not lead to the bankruptcy of the enterprise, and if the enterprise, closes down, it will not lead to a crisis in the country.
And here's the main thing. A person at the same time can sit on just one chair, at just one table, sleep on just one bed. Differences in height are not so significant, you can provide and different sizes of furniture, and adjustment. Even billionaires sleep on standard sized beds. If I have one bed, why would I need another one? Where can I put the extra rubbish? Then, a person eats within the limits of physiological norms. Of course, there are differences in needs, due to both individuality and the current moment. But the difference is insignificant. Even if the consumption of food by a certain person fits the concept of "gluttony" - it is not too much
But if you make a meal for everyone knowingly more than is required by the physiological norms, and in general, if you provide all the necessary items of consumption, even the highest quality, it turns out to be less costly for society than the current race to produce more useless things, wasting irreplaceable resources, and then feverishly steam it, creating advertising artificial need.
For these reasons, Jacques Fresco, known to us, for example, from the "Spirit of Time" series of films, calls a reasonably managed society a "resource-based economy" - that is, a system that saves natural resources. At the same time, he sees that the problem of natural resources can only be solved by solving social problems.
Let's repeat: the mass poverty of the current unreasonable system costs society more than the common wealth of planned production and distribution according to needs
If we want to avoid war, ecological disaster, improve human health, preserve irreplaceable natural resources - the only way out is to replace the current unreasonable social system

The following figures are indicative: 10% of people are employed in the manufacturing sector. That is, only every tenth person provides the other nine with everything they need.
All the rest are engaged in useless or harmful work (tobacco producers, medication producers, military personnel who produce death; advertisers, lawyers and journalists who produce lies; political propagandists who produce stunting).
Everybody is busy with the feverish things that are useless to each other. useless goods, useless services, useless labor.
Production of harmful and even useless goods creates new problems.

To sum up: such titanic efforts - and all on one - are useless: imposing the useless things. At the same time it distracts from solving real problems. There is no time to think, there is no one to solve, and the problems get worse.

That is why the opinion of the classics of Marxism is such that it is time to move from compulsory general employment to work from the motives of self-realization. That is, whoever does not want to - he may not work. There are two reasonable objections: first, what about justice? And second, how to feed them? In fact, as we can see, only a small part of the entire population feeds all mankind. These may well be those for whom self-realization is work in production sphere. If everybody else retires, the tension from the general competition will reduce it, and the situation with the distribution of material wealth will not change for the worse, because now all they are doing is just to steam each other with useless things. In fact we are not talking about releasing them from work, but about honestly admitting that they do not really work, and no one needs their work.
Planned distribution of labour will solve real problems instead of imaginary ones, and most likely by a small percentage of the total number of people.
And by freeing the rest of the people from the need to work, society:
1) Protects itself from the aggravation of overproduction problems,
2) freeing people from bone muttering and running in the wheel and so freeing their creating energy from bounds. It can be aimed at solving real problems. Here revolution can be comparable in its results with the transition from a primitive communal formation to a slave-owning one, which gave an impetus to the development of literature, sciences and arts.
And here we have gradually passed to the third question.


Did the author above say that this formula should be understood literally?
But this formula does not take into account the labor contribution of the individual. Everyone has needs... And  merits (significance degrees) for  society of different persons are different.
Where is the material incentive to work in this formula? Or is the formula as inaccurate as it is with the needs-based distribution, when in fact the "buffet" was meant?
And in what way are the different merits of the buffet participants taken into account? There is no way - everyone at the buffet is equal.

Let's consider what it means to have no connection between an individual's work results and his or her consumption.

Material stimulation of labor remains in the past [8]. Why? Because a new motive to work comes to the stage - the motive of self-realization [9]. Unlike today's society, it turns out to be the main motive.
There will be noi need to force people to work specially.

But how can we expect people to work from the motives of self-realization alone(only), without additional incentives?

The fact is that the system described by the formula "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according to his or her needs" is "grounded" upon a different social structure than ours.
Just as a bicycle is suitable for movement on the ground, and a oar boat is suitable for movement on water. These are efficient and convenient vehicles, each for its own environment. But a bicycle on the water and a boat on land are useless.
Or another example - the whip of a supervisor remains an effective incentive to work, but its use is incompatible with the principles of organization of our society.
This is also the case with distribution systems for labour and needs.

In the conditions of capitalism nobody cancelled the purpose of a man as a social being - to be realized as a socially significant person. Under capitalism it is called to be successful, and success under capitalism is to have as many resources as possible for oneself personally, and it is the more prestigious the less the same resources others have.
It turns out that by spending time and effort on work (even if it is socially useful) as a means, I steal these resources from myself as goals (under capitalism). If I can work today not for 8-10 hours, but less than 8 hours, then this time I can spend, for example, to earn money in another way, or to repair my apartment (with capitalism, even the overhaul of the apartment is not done by the forces of housing and communal services for their cost, but the funds of the owner of the apartment by his own forces or by hired workers, hired again from his pocket). In short, somehow to spend on himself. Let it be not to work, but to rest, to restore health, because the care for health lies on the person, because the farther from the Soviet times, the more terrible it becomes to fall ill.
Therefore, now the goal to work selflessly, out of only enthusiasm, for the benefit of society -  is the destiny of a child or incorrigible romance. A pragmatic person will ask a question: what will I have from this?

As a result, such a system of incentives to work turns into its opposite - instead of stimulating work, it keeps from it!
- My teaching experience leads me to write a textbook on my subject. What a passion I would take on this work! - But the dream will remain a dream, because no one will pay for the work on a book, also I will not be able to publish it.
This is how a society with its dominant commodity-money relations does not stimulate labor, but keeps those who have both the ability and desire from it!
And if a person doesn't have any outstanding abilities, if he has successful competitors... and there is no money to retrain to the business he is more inclined to do... and to reveal what he is inclined to do, nobody has tried, and he himself is not developed and therefore can't... from here full of despair, realization of futility of his efforts - these are the roots of laziness and hard drinking.
In another system, the same person would perfectly perform the functions to which he is inclined; most likely, in a team with those whom the current capitalist system makes them his competitors, and thus enemies, a source of danger.
It turns out that commodity-money relations, payment for labor produce laziness.
But we said that commodity-money relations, payment for work are an incentive to work. Contradictions in Marxist theory? No, the other side of the coin
К. Marx wrote that work is a field in which knowledge, skills, self-improvement in this field are required - this is the most human sphere of being. But in class society work is a means of oppressing people, humiliating and enslaving them. Therefore, in class formations labor is alienated and contributes to alienation of a person from other people, from himself and his human essence [2].
Correspondingly, here are the roots of laziness.
People experience the enslaving and degrading alienation of labour. How do they resist it? The only one way that is accessible, habitual: to evade by all available means at the slightest opportunity...


This is the principle of the current social being: to get the maximum, giving the minimum to society.

Now let's imagine the society of K. Marx, I. Efremov and J. Fresco, in whish we know that all our needs will be met in it guaranteed.
A person does not have a task to provide for himself, to assemble a fortune, to save for something. There is no task to "make a career", there is only a task to improve skills, expand and deepen knowledge. There is no need to find time to repair the apartment, to earn extra money. But all this has a sense of life, at least its content, of today's man. What can a person placed in such conditions, when this content is absent, do? Either drown such a meaningless life at the bottom of a bottle (to drink hard). Or to find the sense of life in selfless work for the benefit of society and spend your free time on it.
Let us recall the words of Jacques Fresco from the film "The Spirit of Time - 3": look at the children. They are not lazy, they are extremely active. And we become adults and turn out to be different, because society acts on us in a depressing way.
Now we see a state of activity only in children (because society has not yet managed to suppress it in them) and in some adults who are said to be "not from this world". This desire to give away, to waste oneself is natural for a person. And adult economical calculated passivity is not an integral part of human nature, but the result of suppression of human life forces by unreasonable social structure.

That is why Marxists predicted such a society - a society of enthusiasm. Where there is no force and economic coercion in labor, and the distribution is made not by labor, but by needs.
Where everyone can freely change their occupation during life. For this purpose, people are constantly studying, mastering new professions, learning new things. And they do it only at the behest of their own souls. Nobody orders what new professions to master, when to work, when to have a rest. And nobody forces you specially to learn or work.


Will the intensity of work decrease? As we can see, it is as high as it is now, and is not required to be as high as it is now. On the other hand, professiona) diseases are excluded, and in addition, an atmosphere of enthusiasm for inspiration is maintained. The high level of development of productive forces allows it. Moreover, the current crisis of overproduction makes the transition to such a system necessary. But whether the intensity of work will be greatly reduced is still a question... If a person works with inspiration and nobody forces him, nobody chases him, he will always work at the peak of inspiration, with maximum productivity. After all, he decides for himself when he needs to rest, based on his own individual needs, not on the decision of his chief. And inspiration, thirst for activity he can visit and when others are resting ...

All this is very unusual nowadays. Can such an order ever be created?
But the current order seems natural to us, doesn't it? But it exists only for a few centuries. It was preceded by a feudal era, where economic coercion to work did not play a significant role.
The transition from the feudal epoch to the present one did not go smoothly. There were also unsuccessful attempts in history, for example, attempts of the peasant and Cossack "early bourgeois revolution" led by E. Pugachev [5], Napoleon's attempt, the Great French Revolution. As a result, capitalism did win, replacing outdated feudal relations.
However, even then, in the feudal era, there were skeptics who thought that our usual capitalist relations were utopian.  They are opposed by the ideologist of the bourgeois society of those times, Jean-Jacques Rousseau:
"The people at the meeting, - (some)will tell me - what a chimera! ...Sneaky slaves smile with a mocking look at the word "freedom". [4, p. 236].
They could not imagine any labor for money, without a whip of a supervisor, or collegial decision-making in parliaments and referendums, instead of decisions being made by the feudal despot alone.
There are also skeptics today who consider as the utopian ideas the communist ideas of distributing not by labour, but by needs, and the idea of labour as the first need itself, not the debilitating alternative to hunger
As we can see, there is nothing unusual about radical changes in social life. If the new orders seemed like a utopia to those who were accustomed to the old orders, it does not mean that change cannot come. People get used to the new orders, because "being determines consciousness".


Thus, the material incentives for labour are outdated. Society can afford not only to do without it, but also to replace it.

But there are still questions about the fairness and humanity of such changes. Generally speaking, it has been pointless to ask this question throughout history. How fair was the emergence of slaves? The transformation of peasants into proletarians without property? There was a change in society because society could not change without it. And the costs of society were paid by the oppressed classes...
That is, let's mention first that the answer to the question, whether it is fair and humane, does not affect the onset of a new formation in any way.
However, let's analyze such a system from the point of view of justice.

The idea of social justice is as old as the world. Whoever has great merit in society, showed great valor in the war, pinned to his belt more scalps, he got more gold, cattle, slaves and concubines.
On the other hand, he who does not work does not eat. The debtors are sold as slaves.
The world stood on it.
Where is justice in the formula K. Marx "from everyone according to ability, (to) everyone according to need"?
In general, the formula "from each according to ability, to each according to need" is a special formula of trust. If it is known that it is pointless to demand from a person the fulfillment of some norms, that a person does everything possible and no incentives will make him work more and better - then, indeed, the stimulation of labor by the level of distribution (consumption) is meaningless (has no sense), and it is quite possible to untie the distribution from labor achievements and move to another principle of distribution - according to needs.
The writer I. Efremov ("Razor blade") explains the principle of "from everyone according to ability" so. There are more capable, stronger, and less capable, weaker ones. The strong will do most of the (common) work. And the weak ones? What matters is "...the lack of dependency of the weak. They have to do their smaller part of common work, but with no less heroism and self-denial than the strong ones.

We could have limited our ideas to this, but, again, we say that the motive of such selfless work is self-realization.
We will accept that the majority of people will acquire this mentality in the future
But... most people aren't(is not) all people yet. What about those who don't consider  the work as self-realization?
It would seem natural to add an incentive here. Like the famous one: "He who does not work, he does not eat.
Now is the time to clarify what it means to work from the motives of self-realization.

Nowadays, numerous manuals on management and psychology are devoted to finding motivation to work in oneself and in subordinates. Further, the author has discussed with those who position themselves as communists and patriots of the USSR. In their opinion, the alienation of labor was already overcome in the USSR, and everyone worked there solely for the sake of self-realization, because everyone had the opportunity to freely choose a profession, as the choice was not affected by the limited financial opportunities in free Soviet education.
It is impossible to imagine a more dogmatic, vulgar interpretation of this principle of Marxism. Laziness, career intrigue, bureaucracy, and the consequence of all this – hard drinking – were present in the USSR, as in any capitalist country. Because in the USSR there was an alienation of labor.
That is, at first sight, the principle of "work from the motives of self-realization" does not contain anything unusual. But this is only at first sight.
Labor based on the motives of self-realization is possible only when the motive of self-realization is the only motive. In all other cases, if it is "supplemented" by any incentive, the motive will be a thirst for profit or fear of punishment.

What if someone doesn't want to work?
Maybe he or she will not want to work at all, or if a person is involved in public work at all, he or she will want to be excluded from the labour process for a longer period of time than a weekend or vacation?
Well, he has the right to do so. Again, no coercion.
And he will be fed for this? Yes, he will receive like all members of society - according to needs.

But where is justice here?

Let's give the opinion of E. Fromm. We feed even cats and dogs, although they do not bring any commercial benefits. Moreover, it is unacceptable to apply the principle of "he who does not work, he does not eat" in relation to a person. A person has an unconditional right to life, whether he works or not. If a person is not interested in work, it is a problem of society - how to interest him/her," writes the humanist philosopher [3].
Further, here is the opinion of the writer Ivan Efremov ("Razor Blade"):
"The whole world stands on the fact that the brave and strong fighters who are ahead have both glory and honor for their work, and a large share ... in the distribution of benefits. But the Communists have to give up on these superfluous benefits”.
As we can see, in both cases it is a question of making the work cease to be associated with material remuneration. Indeed, only in this case will self-realization be the only motivation to work. This is the tendency to change the attitude to justice.

And here is the example of justice from another area is that of justice, where justice is at the centre, i.e. the area under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice ("justitia" in Latin means "justice"). In criminal law, higher justice is to be treated equally for equal. But the post of executioner has been abolished, and our punishment is not according to the fair "principle of the talion" (equal for equal), but according to the law. The most brutal sadistic maniac is not tortured, the murderer is not killed, but kept peacefully in the "zone". So (is) with the distribution in the future. Society is gradually outgrowing the principle of justice in everything, replacing it with a more progressive principle of humanism.



Moreover, as long as we talk about how fair it is to untie distribution from labour achievements in the social formation of the future, it is proposed to do it now in Europe (Switzerland, the Netherlands, Finland) [10]. This means that the founders of Marxism have correctly grasped the trend, even if the representatives of an alien system borrow their decisions, even if they do not change the whole system, ...

On the other hand, from the point of view of the enthusiast of a reasonable society of the future, if there is a situation when he works and his neighbor does not work, and they both get what they need, then there is not an unfair distribution, but the stupidity of a neighbor who steals from himself, voluntarily abandoning the most interesting aspect of life

Finally, let us look at this perspective from a humanitarian perspective.
Marx has proposed an alternative to the current state of affairs - working solely on the basis of self-realization, on a plan that provides for everyone. Working for self-realization is about doing what the soul wants, not what is more profitable.
Work without the market is work for the benefit of others, not to bankrupt a competitor and deceive the client. That is, working in such conditions, it is not necessary to rape the conscience and compassion. Is it not humane?
And no matter how much you work, you get not much and not little, but according to your needs. Therefore, you should not humiliate yourself in front of your bosses or disgraced staff.
Finally, society will be spared the harmful work of all.
In general, freedom, self-fulfillment, absence of necessity to suppress oneself and to make a deal with conscience and compassion for the sake of competitive advantages, i.e. development of the best human qualities - that is what humanism is (human development in a human being);
And getting rid of exploitation, poverty, the need to humiliate oneself in front of one's superiors, the danger of being killed in wars is humane, i.e. the opposite of what is cruel

Let's summarize:
1. The current monetary system of production regulation and labor stimulation is outdated and needs to be replaced
2. K. Marx proposed an alternative in the form of a formula "From each by ability, to each by need". This formula should be understood literally.
3. The first part of the formula means work from the motives of self-realization, without economic and forceful coercion
It also means that many people are freed from useless labour and the right of the individual not to work if society does not need it.
5. The intensity of work in this order can be reduced, and it does not create a social problem. On the other hand, the enthusiasm for self-realization represents a large reserve for increasing productivity.
6. The second part of the formula means distribution on the basis of the "buffet" principle.
Society produces as planned so much that everything is enough for everyone. Everyone takes what they need - according to their needs. From (the amount of)what society has to offer (to)everyone. Difficult to manufacture products are made to order.
7. Such a system of planned production and distribution according to needs will provide everyone with everything they need, but it will be less costly for society than the current market system with its mass poverty
8. This means that the level of consumption is not tied to the level of labour services provided to society.
9. Such a system means replacing the principle of justice with a more humanistic principle of priority.
10. In general, such a system is not accustomed to the modern human being in the same way (if not to a greater extent) and means the same revolutionary change as the replacement of forced labour with a whip of a supervisor under feudalism by economic coercion under capitalism. Under feudalism, there were also skeptics who did not believe in the onset of the usual capitalist orders, as nowadays there are skeptics who do not believe in the possibility of practical implementation of the formula "From each according to his or her abilities to each according to his or her needs".
11. freeing the rest of the people from the need to work, society:
(a) Protect itself from the exacerbation of overproduction problems,
b) freeing people from bone muttering and running in the wheel of the creative energy of people. It can be aimed at solving real problems. Here revolution can be comparable in its results with the transition from a primitive communal formation to a slave-owning one, which gave an impetus to the development of literature, sciences and arts.

Notes

1 Marx K. Criticism of the Gothic Program
2 Marx K. Philosophical and economic manuscripts of 1844. Section 2 - Alienation
3 Fromm E. Revolution of hope
4 Rousseau Jean-Jacques Political essays: Treatises: Perv. with Fr. - C.: Spirit i Litera, 2000. —344 с.
5
Some Soviet historians considered the peasant-Cossack war led by Yemelyan Pugachev as an early bourgeois revolution.
Not all Soviet historians agreed. But the key word here is the early one. That is, immature, doomed to failure. And the fact that the Cossacks were motivated by the development of commodity-money relations, i.e. the sprouts of new capitalist relations, does not cause doubts and disagreements among historians.
For more details, please see: Paneyakh V.M. Scientific session on the history of peasant wars in Russia // Вопросы истории (History Questions), 1964, № 9.
6
F. Engels at Anti-During speculated that bringing heterogeneous units of labor and resources accounting - joules, pieces, kilograms, liters - to a single unit - cost - is a transitory conditioned by the imperfection of accounting instruments. Nowadays, in the epoch of computer revolution, we are able to estimate the genius of his guess. However, already in Soviet times money ceased to be a regulator of production. Money in the USSR served only as a means of accounting. Now, when data are stored, transferred and processed electronically on computers at enterprises, we can see that the cost is excessive to account for labor and resources. Databases, language SQL, allowing to formulate any inquiries on data sampling, allow basically without cost to do perfectly well.
The concept of such a system was developed by Academician Glushkov back in the 20th century. And he did not limit himself to this as a futuristic forecast, but proposed to the Council of Ministers a specific, "turnkey" program for the implementation of such a system, and took it personally to head it. The system would be called OGAS, or GASU (State Automatic Economic Management System). And if, as a result of intrigues in the top management, his initiative had not been rejected, USSR would not have lost in economic competition with the West. According to academician Glushkov, such a system would have paid for itself in 3 five-year periods, after which the USSR would have outpaced the most developed countries of the West in its development. As Glushkov himself said, this is "an easy way to win an economic competition, cheap and loyal".
See: Pikhorovich V.D. Unclaimed alternative to market reform in 1965. To the 80th anniversary of V.M. Glushkov // Almanac "Vostok", № 2 (14), February 2004 URL: http://www.situation.ru/app/j_art_781.htm
For more information on the capacity of the planned economy (as opposed to the Soviet command and control system) in this regard, see the following Afonin V. A. So what is more effective - a plan or a market? http://www.proza.ru/2015/04/25/1602
7
What should you do if you are a highly qualified specialist? (Why do recruiters refuse to accept candidates who are overqualified?)
URL: http://hh.ru/article/16782
8
К. Marx directly points out [1] that the formula "according to needs" refers to a mature communist society and is intended to replace the principle of payment for labor, which, according to his idea, operates only at an early, immature stage of communist society.
Besides, K. Marx himself says: "Besides all the above, it was a mistake to see the essence of the matter in the so-called distribution and to make the main emphasis on it.
Any distribution of consumer goods is always only a consequence of the distribution of the production conditions themselves. The distribution of the latter, on the other hand, expresses the nature of the production method itself" [1].
But he thus only says that the new system of distribution can be based on the basis of the new formation. Equivalence of labor and consumption ("The same amount of labor, which he [the worker, a member of society - V.A.] gave to society in one form, he gets back in another form"). 1]) is postulated by him only for the early phase of communism
9
This is evident from the following statement of K. Marx: "Labor from means of life itself will turn into the first need of life" [1].
A prominent Russian social philosopher V.L. Inozemtsev sees the main difference between social formations in motivation to work: the primitive community formation - "instinctive prelabour activity", class formations - work from economic necessity, the future communist formation - work from the motives of self-realization
See: Inozemtsev B. L. To the theory of posteconomic social formation. M.: Taurus. Century, 1995.- 336 p.
10
Finland is preparing an unconditional income programme. After its launch, every citizen of the country will receive 800 euros a month from the state simply for nothing, reports Gazeta.ru with reference to the Finnish edition of Yle. 03.11.2015
The idea of "basic income" implies that a person receives a certain amount of money without any conditions, regardless of whether he or she works or not.
For the first time, the idea was expressed by Prime Minister Juha Sipil; and suggested that unconditional income would be a good substitute for social insurance.
The same pilot project will be launched in one of the cities of the Netherlands, Utrecht, in January 2016. There, the payments will be 900 euros per person.
Earlier experiments on the introduction of unconditional income have confirmed that such a measure reduces social tensions and does not lead to an increase in sedentarism.
As reported by DELFI, earlier the Finnish government began to explore the possibility of launching a pilot project, in which the state will pay residents a guaranteed amount of money, regardless of whether they work or not.
Now the unemployed in Finland, who find even temporary employment, lose their allowance. This means that the unemployed often lose motivation to seek employment.
It is expected that the basic income will allow them to take up work more actively and, ultimately, to work more. Opponents of this idea believe that the scheme will be too expensive and, conversely, will discourage young people from looking for work.
See, for example..:
Vishnyakov E.M. Citizenship fee covers the masses
URL: http://kommunika.ru/?p=14150
Absolute income in Finland. Program for 800 euros per month free of charge.
URL: The government intends to pay each Finn 800 euros per month "for nothing".
URL: http://vlasti.net/news/227876
11
Why should the herds of freedom... Why is democracy impossible?
URL: http://ss69100.livejournal.com/1116660.html