“From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” So says the old ostensibly-communist saw.

What’s the problem with this idea? The simple question that makes it obvious would be, “Who decides ability and need?”

The more I consider the question, the more obvious it becomes that it doesn’t readily support the concept(s) of Communism.

People like to use the words “Communism” and “Socialism” interchangeably, and to be fair, from a pragmatic perspective, that’s not entirely unreasonable.

Theoretically speaking though, the two are worlds apart as I see things.

You may ask the basic question, “How?”

Socialism is in my mind, an elite group “running a society.” Crazy folks like myself assert any government is Socialist in nature.

By my logic, some level of Socialism is both expected and acceptable in a society. The trick—if trick there be—is to “find the sweet spot.”

How much government is reasonable? What should government control? At what level should a given policy, law, rule, or other regulation be implemented; Should it be at a national level, a state one, locally, or not at all?

Communism on the other hand, seems to me to seek to eliminate government in all possible ways. Put simply, Communism is “informed or educated Anarchy.”

What this means is, where Communism is concerned, decisions about what I can produce, and what I have need of, should be essentially mine.

The problem is this. Assuming a “free society”—one in which a minimum of government exists—the inherent idea is that I make what I make, and keep what I choose to keep.

It would seem that reasonable humans would not amass things—particularly perishable items—they can not or will not use.

What should they do with such things?

I can come up with but three answers.

The least sensible would be to destroy or discard wantonly that which is excess. At times, as little as one might like it, this is what will occur.

The next is more reasonable in my mind, but not nearly always the best option. It is, to give the excess away.

This—at times—is the best answer. Knowing one has lived in hard times, and that others may be doing likewise in the present moment may well make it reasonable to give to such as a method to make the lives of those folks more tenable.

Finally, one might choose to exchange one’s windfall for either items one desires, or a promise to receive such in future. The common way to handle this, is product or what we refer to as “currency.”

In all of this, the point is, the individual decides what he or she needs and what is counted not as necessary, but wanted.

I bring this up for one obvious reason. If you wish to enforce either Socialism or Communism—the latter being questionably accomplishable at best for the previously stated reasons—you must cede your decisions on what you want and what you need to someone else.

To some degree every form of government takes responsibility for this.

You may think that’s not the case. You would be mistaken!

I would ask a telling question, “Does the municipality in which you live have that which is commonly referred to as ‘welfare’—potentially at multiple levels?”

If we understand that government pretty much always produces nothing but administrative and enforcement functionality (commonly with a judicial component to allow for decisions about what is codified, and how it should be enforced), we must then conclude that all other production is a function of the citizens of a given entity.

If therefor, government speaks of—the much more implements—“welfare,” they must take that which is produced (or the promise thereof) from those who reside in the region governed, if they are to give it to those “in need.”

I would think it obvious that the decision regarding what can be taken, would be a function of both what the person from whom substance is taken produces, and what they “need.” You can take from me what I need, but that would seem counter to the previously stated idea regarding need and ability.

The same logic applies to the concept of “giving to the needy.”

Deciding to whom largess should be extended, requires a determination of “need.”

A major problem with this is that those making the decisions where needed on both sides are basically “drones.”

That’s not to say they have no knowledge, education, or ability, but that they tend to be “bound by” a set of policies that indicate from whom they must extract substance, and to whom they should distribute it.

Failure to set such policies would make management of such a system largely impossible. Even with the decisions having been made in advance, there’s a constant concern with having the proper number of folks in place to adjudicate and implement welfare claims.

For this reason, I’m pretty strongly opposed to using government for the purpose of deciding need and acting on that decision.

To be fair, in a polite, functional society, somebody must make that decision.

As such, I’m not opposed to a sort of “safety net” for those who are starving or at risk of dying of exposure or similar, run by government. To be clear though, it should only exist for extreme circumstances.

Further, where possible, it should rely on external charity when and where ever possible.

I would hope it obvious that I’m not a great fan of charitable organizations either. Should they exist? If people are willing to support them, absolutely. Do they benefit society? Some of the time, but not nearly always.

So what’s the answer to the problem of need?

When and where possible, individuals should not abdicate their privilege to their fellows—be it government, groups, or other individual persons.

Simply stated, you should be willing to give of your substance (perhaps even to your detriment) to those in need. Furthermore, you should have no expectation of return for your actions.

The point of what I’m writing here is this. Typically, neither government, nor organizations of various types should be responsible for determining either my ability to produce, nor my needs.

Add to this my belief that neither of the above should (generally) decide what amount of that which I produce I’m “allowed to” retain.

Do you agree with this, or do you count my perspective to be in error? If so, how?

As usual, here’s hoping you’re well and happy. If not I pray you achieve that state in the near future.