Talk:From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

As a German
As a German living in England as an exile, I'm sure Marx could spell the word 'Labour', had he lived in the USA he might have spelt it 'Labor', as used in this article. Please refrain from colonial miss-spellings as it only serves to corrupt the English language.
 * Oh look, a German who thinks he knows everything; how novel.

93.155.220.96 (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed. Apparently no one was interested in pluralising "ability". Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need → From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs – the suggested title matches the most common formulation of this quotation - the one used by Marx. It says "needs" rather than "need" 2.125.145.186 (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the proposed title change, but wouldn't the version originally used by Marx be in German? bd2412  T 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support WP:COMMONNAME. The "needs" version appears more common in WP:RS . Also, FWIW, both the French and German versions given in the lede use the respective plurals as well (besoins, Bedürfnissen). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, per nom and IP. bd2412  T 14:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there any reason for "ability" to remain singular, rather than "abilities" (facultes, as in the original Blanc)? If you're going to change one, might as well change both. Walrasiad (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment. Sorry for prolonging this despite the clear consensus to move, but it would be beneficial if we could address Walrasiad's question now rather than follow this RM with another discussing "ability" should be changed to "abilities". Jenks24 (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Origin of the phrase
The new testament biblical precedent is mentioned citing Berman, who in a footnote says that contemporaries would have recognized the allusion. I wonder if there are also old testament precedents. Deuteronomy 16:17 "Each according to what he can give ... " describes obligations for ritual sacrifice at the three yearly pilgrimage festivals. The talmudic principal that, "Torah (or the deity) does not demand of a person more than he can do" is repeated in Rashi's commentary and also quoted within the Zohar, in the latter case, the topic is hospitality and charity to the poor. I couldn't chase down sources for this idea, but thought it is worth documenting it here in case others can. ZZZ (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There is also this from Exodus 16:16-18 "This is what the Lord has commanded: Gather of it, every man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer apiece, according to the number of persons who each of you has in his tent. And the people of Israel did so; they gathered some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azalea666 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There is also |"giving them what they need according to one's ability" which is part of Hui-Neng's (638–713 AD) Commentary on the Diamond Sutra (~868 BC). For comparison, Exodus is thought to have been based on stuff that happened ~600 BC. --Epoch qwert (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Technically, this slogan now suggests economic exploitation
Getting the most out of people and allotting to them only the barest of needs would now be exploitation -- getting as much out of a worker for the barest of personal needs. A slave-owning planter in the ante-bellum South would have offered that to his slaves.

Of course, if 'need' goes beyond mere sustenance, 'need' includes recognition of human dignity, including an intellectual and cultural life, a measure of personal freedom including paid vacations (if the work is drudgery), and recreation if his job is sedentary. Man does not live by bread alone. To be at his best he usually needs more than bare sustenance.Pbrower2a (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge To each according to his contribution
I'd suggest merging the article To each according to his contribution. Please discuss on its Talk page. --Ashawley (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Gender neutrality in translation
In translating "Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen" from German to English, I might get "Everyone after his skills, each after his needs", "Everyone according to their abilities, each according to his needs", or "Everyone according to their skills, everyone according to their needs". The gendered word here is seinen, which can be translated as "its" "his", or "one's". Given that Marx's intended meaning was gender neutral, shouldn't we use, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" or "From each according to one's ability, to each according to one's need"? English is an evolving language, and the pronouns he, him, and his are no longer considered gender-neutral. 134.10.79.217 (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I also think this would be more consistent with some of our citations, such as James Furner, Marx on Capitalism: The Interaction-Recognition-Antinomy Thesis, Brill 2018, p. 113 and Gilabert, Pablo (2015). "The Socialist Principle 'From Each According To Their Abilities, To Each According To Their Needs'". Journal of Social Philosophy. 46 (2): 197–225. doi:10.1111/josp.12096 134.10.79.217 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

an unusually decent article until...
you get to the totally irrelevant and misguide quote from James Furner, and who cares what he thinks anyway? Delete it.