This distinction raises for Marx the same moral issue as it did for the early Greeks: when individuals are forced to engage in specific acts, they cannot be considered free. This is true whether a person is forced to obtain food in order to satisfy hunger or a person is forced to labor in order to pay for housing or health care – both of which are considered to be fundamental needs for subsistence and survival, which if compromised because an individual cannot pay for such further demeans and denigrates the individual’s standing as a human and as a member of the community of men.
In this sense, it matters not whether a person is on welfare, makes minimum wage, or receives millions of dollars in wages and bonuses. If one labors generally for subsistence or for a wage, they are a “laborer” who is not free – regardless of how much the arguments of having a bigger home or owning a fancy car provide evidence of their value or their freedom. Nothing in the latter condition or position suggest higher moral worth or status: goods and their accumulation, in other words, do not quantify or differentiate the moral legitimacy of a person or among people. All possess that standing by simply being born; and, as such, it must logically be the case that conditions need to be imposed on people to create differentiation or value. Here, again, Marx positions himself as a moral theorist acting within the tradition of philosophers who have commented on moral theory across centuries. And he speaks through the language of political economy primarily because it is the defining element of his and our time.
Given such, what would it take to realize the goal of Marx: for people to be able to “hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner … without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic? Individuals would have to be in control of their own lives, of their means of thinking and acting (their means of production); and they would have to have access not just to materials that enhance their well-being but goods that promote their creative potential. This would allow them to be free to choose where they wanted to live, what skills they wanted to pursue, how they wished to express themselves personally and professionally, and what they required to realize their potential – which is what is meant by “each according to his ability, each according to his needs.”
Such a definitional understanding suggests some people might require little (basic food, shelter, education, and health care), while others might require more if providing necessary goods to others (an office, farmland, a factory). There might even be a case where certain individuals might – for professional or aesthetic interest or need – require access to significantly more advanced products such high end technical equipment like computers if a programmer or physicist, quality materials if an artist or clothing designer, high-end performance cars if an engineer or race car driver.
If individuals through their initiative were promoting the common good, would such items not be considered worthy: access to computers would generate new systems and apps, access to materials would influence design, a Formula One car would generate improvements in more efficient engines, steering, braking, etc.? Is this not the same argument made today in capitalist societies: that investments in technology, fashion design or racing, paid for by sales, improve product development as developments trickle down throughout the market? And would today’s market not confirm demand for more costly items would be limited, as specialized computers, couture dresses, and Ferraris are not presently produced in mass?
Or is the argument simply a red herring, which effectively reveals that demand for such luxury products are really the result of marketing efforts that imply or impose scarcity? Which raises yet another question: if certain
computers or clothes or cars are truly that great,
why are not such computers and clothes and cars available to people more generally? Think the answer is obvious: if their purpose went solely to use, profits would be limited as few
94