This quotation is often bandied about as a soundbite summary of
communism. There is, of course, more to communism than this, but since
its proponents still tend to recite this quote from time to time, it's
worth examining closely. As we'll see, it's like that old quotation about
statistics being like a bikini--what it reveals is tantalizing, but what
it conceals is vital.
First note that this sentence no verb. Doesn't have a subject,
either, and is a bit short on direct objects as well. Let's start by
specifying exactly what's coming "from each" and "to each." As best I can
figure, we're talking about work (whether physical or mental or a
combination of both) and property (whether it's money or food or medicine
or whatever). "Property," however, is a term that always provokes debate,
so let's leave it aside and just use "stuff," which doesn't necessarily
imply ownership. That gives us the following:
From each, work and stuff according to his abilities;
to each, work and stuff according to his needs.
That sounds nice enough. Still no verb, though. For the latter half
of the sentence, it's easy--we can just use "given," which makes it sound
like a pleasantly benign sort of socialism. But the first half of the sentence
is more problematic. It'd be nice if we could use "give" here as well, or
a similar verb like "contribute." Unfortunately, each of these implies
that there's a voluntary aspect to work and stuff, and that just isn't the
case in real life. (If you think it is the case, I'll send you
the addresses of charitable organizations and my student loan company, and
you can put your money where your mouth is and start writing checks. Oh,
and the guy huddled in the alley could really use that extra coat you have
hanging in your closet.) No, there's nothing voluntary about the
contribution of work and stuff, so we need to use a stronger verb, a verb
that makes clear that one won't be allowed to hoard it:
From each will be taken work and stuff according to
his abilities; to each will be given work and stuff according to
his needs.
There, that's more realistic. But we still don't have a subject. Who
is doing the taking and giving? Why, the government, of course--who
else?
From each, the government will take work and stuff
according to his abilities; to each, the government will give
work and stuff according to his needs.
We're not done yet. As the Founding Fathers noted a good many years
before the invention of communism, it's not at all easy to measure
someone's abilities. Even with modern psychological methods, it's an
imperfect science:
From each, the government will take work and stuff according to its best estimate of his abilities; to each, the government will
give work and stuff according to its best estimate of his
needs.
One last little problem. It's nice to think that the government will
take care of people's needs, and if they get it a little wrong sometimes,
well, that's tolerable enough. Of course, this assumes that there's
enough to satisfy everyone's needs, which isn't necessarily the case (as
we know from watching communism in action):
From each, the government will take work and stuff according to
its best estimate of his abilities; to each, the government will give work
and stuff according to its best estimate of his needs. Assuming
there's enough work and stuff to satisfy his needs, that
is.
A close examination reveals the truth behind this pretty little aphorism. It uncovers the essentially coercive nature of communism; your
work and stuff can be seized if the government thinks that someone else
needs it. (Moreover, it hints at a good way to beat the system--if you
can convince the government that you have few abilities but many needs,
you can do quite well for yourself.) Finally, it makes explicit one of
the problems with this utopian view--namely, redistribution sounds well
and good, but one can't really assume it'll work. Of course, this
analysis doesn't cover all the problems with this statement; for one, it
implicitly assumes an honest government (which is, of course, an utterly
preposterous assumption). But it is, at the very least, a start.