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

The title is a simple expression of Marxist ideology - not all of it by a very long way. It is also a concept challenged in Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged", which I have just finished reading, and which provides some interesting challenges. It is worth a read, if you are interested, but at 1200 pages long, this blog post may be all you need.

Rands approach is "objectivism", which, in the terms of economics, is "from each as he will give, to each as he earns" - that if you invent stuff, or create stuff, you deserve to make lots of money from it. She is also very opposed to regulation and restriction of practice, on the grounds that a free and fair competition gives the best opportunity for creative and imaginative minds to make a difference, and make something of themselves.

Before you think that these are trivial pieces of economic theory, the Marxist approach has been tried and failed in communist states - most especially China. And Rands approach is an important underpinning of Western capitalism, especially American. And that is in the process of failing as well.

The problem, I think, is that both of these approaches are flawed. I would like to explore why.

"From each according to his ability" - actually, properly understood, this is a very good principle. Each person should be enabled to perform to his - or her - ability. But this does not mean, as Rand suggests, that the most able just have to work harder. It does mean that those with greater ability should work in more challenging environments, because they will flourish there. It is about fitting people into the right places.

Rand is correct that, if you just make more able people work harder, then you are punishing ability. That is not what this should mean. Ability should not be punished, but rewarded. That is the key. And - to an extent - that reward needs to be financial.

"To each according to their need" - this is also a good principle, sort of. I would alter this, that to each is partly according to what they give, to their ability, to what they are able to achieve. This means that people should receive according to what they contribute, as a starting point, meaning that nurses and teachers would be paid reasonably, but people who simply juggle money would be paid less. And I would probably be paid less than I am, which is life.

But additionally, people should be able to have their basic needs met, which is what this is really about. It is not, as Rand suggested, about providing for peoples wants, or for what they can argue that they "need". It is about providing some basic needs - somewhere to live, something to eat and drink. We would probably include health care too. The important thing is that this is NEEDS, not WANTS. So much of our system is about providing something more than basic needs, which is not a bad thing in itself, but that is something over and above basic requirements.

This basic should be somewhere to live, not necessarily in the places they want or as large as they may desire, enough food for their family to live on properly, and a little spare money. And, of course, it must be worth while to get a job, and work needs to be taken into account. We far too often confuse needs and wants - it is not unreasonable to provide for peoples wants too, but we shouldn't confuse needs and wants.

The principle "from each ... to each ..." is actually not a bad one, as long as it is properly understood. The danger of Rands approach is that it fails to do what it claims, because people are not altruistic by their nature, and it depends on them being so. If they are not, but are greedy, then it will fail. As we are seeing.

If you don't believe that it fails, then watch the Leverson enquiry. That should convince you if nothing else does.