The European Union’s political institutions are organising a many-months-long Conference on the Future of Europe. Part of this are a series of meetings of randomly invited European citizens, who are deliberating on what they think is important for the future of Europe. They are divided in several panels, and the panel that focusses, among other things, on social justice, is meeting this weekend for an online deliberation. As part of this, I have been invited to explain, in five minutes, the concept of ‘fairness’, and to do so in a balanced and accessible way. Not easy if one is used to give hourly lectures to university students, but here’s what I came up with – trying to get the most out of 5 minutes while also being as accessible as possible to a very diverse audience.
When thinking about fairness, we need to ask 4 questions:
First: what is fairness in general terms?
Second, where does fairness apply?
Third, what are the relevant principles of fairness?
Fourth, what are possible policies that affect fairness?
I will explain these four questions one after the other.
The first question is: what is fairness in general terms? It has two sides: on the one hand the division of benefits or the valuable goods, and on the other hand the division of burdens or costs.
Fairness applies in any area where we decide on a division of valuable goods that are scarce, which means that they are not unlimited and that, in general, many people want to have them. Examples are the distribution of income, of scarce medication such as vaccines, of valuable jobs or positions that more people would want than there are available.
Fairness also applies if we think about the division of burdens, hence, when we raise the question: who will pay, or bear the non-financial burdens, for something that benefits many people, or for something that needs to be done? For example, we can ask: who should pay how much in taxes so that we can have a good school system, or a health care system, or that we can have policies to deal with climate change?
In addition, there is a third element to fairness, which is whether how the decisions are made – the rules, processes etc. are fair.
The second question is: where does fairness apply? It applies to all areas that have effects on the division of the benefits and burdens in society. Think about schools, workplaces, but also, crucially, the fiscal system (that is, taxation plus financial transfers by the government). One element that is less visible for citizens, but about which scholars worry a great deal, is how in the economy the benefits from economic production are divided. Here we have seen that, over the last decades, those who derive income only from their own labour receive a smaller share of the wealth generated in the economy, than those who have income from investments.
The third question is: what are the principles of fairness that could be relevant? Here it is important that often there are several principles that are relevant, and as citizens we have to make a choice about how to balance them appropriately.
Some important principles of fairness are the following:
(1) Principle of non-discrimination: in getting access to valuable positions or goods, no-one should be discriminated against based on irrelevant factors. For example, if schools or colleges can only admit a certain number of students, they should make sure their selection is not based on prejudices on grounds of ethnicity, migration status, gender, class, sexual orientation, and so forth.
(2) Principle of meeting basic needs: we want to make sure that all citizens have their basic needs met if that is possible, in order to protect their human dignity. For example, this principle would translate into effective anti-poverty policies.
(3) Principle of merit: this principle states that talents and effort should be rewarded. For example, those who work more hours or have a successful enterprise, should be allowed to earn more; or students who do well at exams should be given higher grades.
(4) Principle of limiting inequalities: this principle states that we want to limit inequalities, for a variety of reasons. One reason for this principle is that large inequalities can have corrosive effects on society. Another reason is that luck plays a large part in generating inequalities, and luck should not determine our chances and outcomes in life.
Clearly, there is a tension between these principles, especially between the principle of merit on the one hand, and the principles of meeting basic needs and limiting inequalities on the other hand. And sometimes those principles of fairness are in tension with the principle of efficiency, which is how to get something done making best use of the available resources, or perhaps with the goal of economic growth.
The fourth question is: what are possible policies to realize fairness? Here we are talking about how progressive the tax system is, whether taxation treats income from labour and income from capital are the same or differently, whether the EU should have an unconditional basic income, and so forth.
{ 60 comments }
nastywoman 11.06.21 at 9:51 am
why all these questions if the ‘Aufgabe’ or question is to explain, in five minutes, the concept of ‘fairness’.
So here it is – unquestionable – in a few seconds:
Play by the rules.
Tell the truth.
Take Turns
Think about how your actions will affect others.
Listen to people with an open mind.
Don’t blame others for your mistakes.
Don’t take advantage of other people.
Don’t play favorites.
and the definition of ‘fairness’ is:
‘impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination’.
JUST TELL THEM TO DO IT!
Ingrid Robeyns 11.06.21 at 10:51 am
@1 – two things: first, in political philosophy, what you write is not the concept of fairness.I was asked to contribute from my discipline. Second, I was actually asked to do more than just explain the concept (so that’s my mistake in the intro to the OP) – I was asked to explain some basic insights from scholarship. Also, from the background documents it was clear that the way the citizens who had prepared this understood it in relation to questions of social justice, equity, etc. In that context, I think the 5′ explanation I gave, made much more sense than the much more restricted description that you offer in your comment.
Mike Huben 11.06.21 at 12:27 pm
Another principle you might add is one of hypocrisy detection.
“If you value your principles of fairness so highly, would you be willing to permanently adopt the lowest position in society to achieve your fairness?”
For example, if you encounter someone who wants to institute slavery, ask them if they’d be willing to be the slave.
This is “put your money where your mouth is” Rawlsianism, and very close to what most soldiers do risking death and disability in wars.
Richard Birns 11.06.21 at 12:44 pm
It’s way too dense and complex for your audience. Try to explain it without summarizing it.
steven t johnson 11.06.21 at 12:54 pm
Fairness is a value judgment about how power (the command over sanctions and resources) is exercised. 1)Treating everyone fairly means treating everyone the same. 2)Treating everyone fairly means taking into account differences. 3)Fairness means never offending anyone’s dignity.
Numbers one and two are in contradiction. And number three, being a personal disposition in someone else’s mind, is impossible to judge, not least because it is impossible to distinguish in persons dignity from vanity. Someone you like is dignified, someone you don’t is pompous. Taking charity destroys claims to dignity in the eyes of those who oppose welfare programs. So on and so forth.
The principles of fairness are plausible enough, until one asks why these principles? Why not the principle of rights, even, or is it especially property rights? What about necessity, whether the need for the market to rule or the nation to survive? What about a radical definition of justice as conformity to God’s will? Evolutionary psychology, still reputable after all, says people are not equal. What if, for instance, a fair market price for labor will still inevitably produce an inequitable society?
I’m not sure the goals of political equality and the continued existence of social classes in a secular society are compatible with social justice in the long run. At any rate, a five minute summary has to assume basic agreement to start with.
nastywoman 11.06.21 at 1:35 pm
@2 –
‘two things: first, in political philosophy, what you write is not the concept of fairness’.
How? –
As I quoted the definition of ‘Fairness’ as being ‘‘impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination’ and you present as Nr1 principle of fairness the Principle of non-discrimination – which I also consider to be the Nr1. ‘Philosophical Unfairness’ in Europe and I very strongly believe that –
‘Playing by the rules – Telling the truth – Taking Turns – Thinking about how your actions will affect others – Listening to people with an open mind – not blaming others for your mistakes and not taking advantage of other people or not playing favorites means –
‘no-one should be discriminated against based on irrelevant factors and we all should make sure that all of our selections are not based on prejudices on grounds of ethnicity, migration status, gender, class, sexual orientation, and so forth.
Lynne 11.06.21 at 1:37 pm
Ingrid, I liked the distinctions you make (who decides, who pays, etc) but, depending on the audience, I wonder whether something more concrete might serve you better.
For example, there is a pie to be divided. We decide it is fair to divide it equally, but we will also consider whether anyone needs more (or less). (As Steven says above, these considerations are in conflict). Now consider, who baked the pie, who paid for the labour, who grew the apples….or any other aspect that you want to highlight. Did everyone contribute somehow? If not, is everyone still entitled to some pie? If so, how much are they entitled to?
This is off the top of my head, and may not work. But if the audience is not particularly academic, some specific example might serve you well.
Interesting exercise!
nastywoman 11.06.21 at 1:45 pm
and about the contradiction of@5
1)Treating everyone fairly means treating everyone the same.
2)Treating everyone fairly means taking into account differences.
If you are taking into account ‘differences’ like ‘ethnicity, migration status, gender, class, sexual orientation, and so forth’ – you can’t treat ‘everyone the same as Mr. Steven t Johnson –
if you understand what I mean?
anon/portly 11.06.21 at 3:02 pm
The fourth question is: what are possible policies to realize fairness? Here we are talking about how progressive the tax system is, whether taxation treats income from labour and income from capital are the same or differently, whether the EU should have an unconditional basic income, and so forth.
I’d suggest replacing “whether taxation treats income from labour and income from capital are the same or differently” with “whether monetary policy is focused on achieving full employment.”
Ingrid Robeyns 11.06.21 at 4:49 pm
thanks for all the comments and advice. I gave my 5′ presentation earlier today, but did share with the citizens who were in that deliberative group the link to this post (the most important reason so that they could read it once more at their own pace, which I think would hopefully meet some of the concerns that Richard @4 has.) But these citizens might return here at any point that they like, so no reason to stop giving your views.
What might be relevant by way of further context, is that in the same panel, there was someone else also talking about fairness, and there were two scholars talking about social security and two about equal rights. And then there are a zillion other panels that focus on the zillion other goals that citizens might have for the EU’s future. While some overlap between those concerns is inevitable, it made me decide to focus more on the distributive side (also because from the report of the first meeting they had, I deduced that they understood ‘fairness’ as, roughly, synonymous for ‘equity’).
Kiwanda 11.06.21 at 5:10 pm
I understand the current meaning of “equity” to be “discrimination now to compensate for earlier discrimination”, something you didn’t address, except that it is specifically not the “principle of non-discrimination”. I also wonder if (or how) fairness is considered to apply to things that are not monetary or material goods and burdens, such as expression.
Stephen 11.06.21 at 8:12 pm
Interesting post. Comments, in no order of importance:
First question, you tag on at the end ” there is a third element to fairness, which is whether how [something adrift here] the decisions are made “. But as far as I can see, this is quite separate from the two sides of the question presented earlier: divisions of benefits, division of burdens.
Second question, and equally fourth question: are you sure that unfairness in the fiscal system has always been, or is always now, the crucial element, and that this can be modified by changes in taxes or UBI? Consider women’s rights in the past, or in the present for many unenlightened countries; ditto slavery; conscription of men but not women to be killed in wars … I could go on.
Third question: you stipulate that for fairness “selection is not based on prejudices on grounds of ethnicity, migration status, gender, class, sexual orientation”. But here, “prejudices” is doing a great deal of work. If selection is based on experience, or on perception of past injustices? I think you have a serious problem here.
I do appreciate that you realise your principles may be incompatible. I can’t see what can be done about that.
Gorgonzola Petrovna 11.06.21 at 8:28 pm
What about this: “he who does not work, neither shall he eat”. The more general rule being: “to each according to his contribution”. I used to hear these a lot. And it does seem like the most basic, quintessential concept of social justice. It’s directly contrary to the idea of “meeting basic needs”. Why should someone do extra work to meet my needs?
JimV 11.06.21 at 9:23 pm
Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you (if the situation were reversed).
(And I’m not even religious.)
reason 11.06.21 at 9:37 pm
I see your last paragraph – which is just an aside “And sometimes those principles of fairness are in tension with the principle of efficiency, which is how to get something done making best use of the available resources, or perhaps with the goal of economic growth.” as bit contentious. I think so called “efficiency” is a very difficult concept in economics. The concept of “efficiency” in economics is basically defined as “meeting the needs of those with purchasing power by paying people as little as possible to provide them”. When you actually express it that way, it makes you wonder – is that what we really want the economic system to be about? And the goal of “economic growth” (in this age of resource depletion and environmental poisoning) is itself perhaps also not the goal we should be following as a goal in itself. I’ve just read “Donut Economics” and it seems to me, that a good summary might be – we have been optimising the wrong things.
nastywoman 11.06.21 at 9:38 pm
@
What about this: “he who does not work, neither shall he eatâ€.
It’s unfair NOT to feed the children if they aren’t allowed to work because in the EU ‘Kinderarbeit is verboten’.
So the more general rule can’t be “to each according to his contribution†as Children and most of our older fellow citizens don’t contribute anymore.
Right?
reason 11.06.21 at 9:51 pm
So Gorgonzola Petrova, you are all in favour of children, the aged, the handicapped, the sick and the incapicitated starving?
J-D 11.07.21 at 7:34 am
These things (ethnicity, migration status, gender, class, sexual orientation) were mentioned as examples of ‘irrelevant factors’. I expect it would be easy to get most people to agree that people should not be treated differently on the basis of irrelevant factors; the difficulty comes, I expect, from people disagreeing about which factors are relevant and which irrelevant. Plenty of agreement about what fairness requires formally; much less about what it requires substantively.
Gorgonzola Petrovna 11.07.21 at 8:19 am
@16, 17, don’t be silly.
Ingrid Robeyns 11.07.21 at 12:03 pm
@19 – if that’s the best answer you can give, that’s disappointing. And on the border of ad-hominem, and I won’t let those go through moderation.
Also, why is what you want to favor not included in the principle of merit? That principle says “distribution according to effort and talents”. The most important type of ‘effort’ for most people is ‘work’.
Gorgonzola Petrovna 11.07.21 at 12:40 pm
You’re right, I shouldn’t reply to those who I feel are clowning. I usually don’t, anyway.
I don’t know about the talents. Why should people with talents get more? It doesn’t seem fair. I think “to each according to his contribution†is a really simple formula: you should be getting the equivalent (measured in LTV units) of what you produce.
William Meyer 11.07.21 at 2:41 pm
Interesting discussion.
Obviously equal treatment cannot be provided under the wide range of real-world constraints that all communal groups face. So the “guiding principle” of when dissimilar treatment between members of the community is acceptable has got to ultimately come down to how much the communal members accept or will endure voluntarily vs. how much coerced support is necessary. I would offer the idea that the community with the least coercion used to obtain a plan of action for the group is the community that has come closest to being “fair.”
nastywoman 11.07.21 at 4:17 pm
@
‘You’re right, I shouldn’t reply to those who I feel are clowning. I usually don’t, anyway’.
So:
“he who does not work, neither shall he eat†was not ‘clowning’?
It was not one of these nasty jokes Conservative Clowns love to make?
(like the joker question: ‘Why should someone do extra work to meet my needs’?)
So could you please warn US next time when you are ‘serious’?
reason 11.07.21 at 4:19 pm
Gorgonzola Petrova,
we were both just pointing out the consequences of your comment. It was you who was being silly. And you still haven’t clarified what you actually mean. At the very least what you are suggesting is nowhere near sufficient.
reason 11.07.21 at 4:24 pm
William Meyer,
while I find your suggestion positive, I’m a bit concerned that there might be a problem in deciding what actually constitutes coercion. In fact as I have a daughter who really wants to commit to live as ab activist with as little money as possible, the greatest source of coercion she faces is the requirements of health insurance. That wouldn’t obviously appear first in the list of sources of coercion that most people would think of.
Gorgonzola Petrovna 11.07.21 at 4:49 pm
@24,
that wasn’t something I just came up yesterday. Those are long-standing, at least 150 y.o., most basic socialist concepts. Famous, even. Not to mention that ‘won’t work – shall not eat’ can be found in the Bible. I assumed everyone knows it. If I was wrong, I apologize.
nastywoman 11.07.21 at 5:58 pm
@
‘Those are long-standing, at least 150 y.o., most basic socialist concepts’.
that’s why it is so confusing why Crazy American Right-Wingers would use
“he who does not work, neither shall he eat†–
as an argument against what they think is ‘Socialism’ by giving ‘children and their families’ all these ‘Socialistic Freebies’ we got in Europe.
And there we have an excellent example for what ‘Fairness’ means – as it is just NOT fair to blame Lenin or the Bible for the a-social unfairness of American Conservatives.
Ikonoclast 11.07.21 at 8:53 pm
Of the four principles, I think numbers 1, 2 and 4 are reasonable and make the most empirical and moral sense. They are definable and defensible However, principle 3, “principle of merit” has problems. I will discuss principle 3 last.
1) Principle of non-discrimination. Discrimination is definable and hence empirically detectable and theoretically preventable based on the definitions. Selection is not based on grounds of ethnicity, migration status, gender, class, sexual orientation and so forth.
(2) Principle of meeting basic needs: Basic needs are definable from the need for clean, potable water upwards. Basic needs physical shade into socially expected or required basic needs as a society develops more capacity to supply needs and desires. Based on that we can set a standard of fairness in supplying basic physical, emotional and social needs.
(4) Principle of limiting inequalities: Again this is measureable. We can measure poverty gaps in various ways.
(3) Principle of merit: this principle states that talents and effort should be rewarded. For example, those who work more hours or have a successful enterprise, should be allowed to earn more; or students who do well at exams should be given higher grades.
Merit is difficult and perhaps impossible to measure. We need to be careful to not confuse competence with merit and to not confuse opportunity with merit. The two interact. How often would the person with the most merit be the person who had the most opportunities to gain competencies, to have come from a privileged background and so on? Merit, developed out, is also often a result of genetic luck. Are people of merit because of their genetic luck? Social and genetic luck play a big role in developing so-called meritable quantities and qualities.
If a person is born “poor and obscure, and small and plain” (a description of Jane Eyre) is that person to be ignored and given less? If that person is further born without the spirit and intelligence which the character Jane Eyre is depicted as having (and which make her far more interesting) is that person still be ignored and given less? That is a form of injustice.
Often merit is thought to accrue from effort and hard work. Again, is the capacity for hard work willed or is it to some extent inculcated and/or inherited genetically? If people make a basic good effort within their capacity and are not the most deliberate sort of thieves and free-riders then we should follow the rubric “From each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs.”
Of course we need competence and must test for it. An incompetent surgeon is painful and dangerous and a incompetent opera singer is just painful. But we should not confuse life luck and genetic luck with merit nor confuse competence with merit.
Remuneration in our neoliberal capitalist system most often has nothing to do with merit. “Merit” too often is used to justify inequality. It’s a dangerous implement. I would leave it out of the toolbox of metrics.
reason 11.07.21 at 9:05 pm
I’m a bit puzzled why people are coming here and posting posts that they think are clever gotyas, but are actually own goals. Most of the commentators here are mostly very smart. I don’t get why they think they can get away with it. Fairness like freedom is a complex multifaceted problem and can’t possibly be covered by a single sound byte.
reason 11.07.21 at 9:22 pm
JimV @14
Actually, I have always thought of the golden rule as being clearly humanist. (Note it is completely independent of any Gods).
It also reminds me of the instruction often seen in toilets – “please leave them as you would like to find them”. Maybe that should be how we think about the world. Perhaps Ingrid in respect to that, don’t we want to also think about generational fairness. It seems to me missing to me. A fair world should ideally be a resilient world where each member of each generation has the possibility to live a fulfilling life.
William S. Berry 11.07.21 at 9:33 pm
@GP:
I’m no Marxian scholar, but I think the formulation that historically has been used to express the distributive principles of socialism runs something like: “From each according to [their] ability; to each according to [their] needs.
That stands, I think, in rather sharp contrast to the “150 y.o.” maxim that you “quote”.
Gorgonzola Petrovna 11.07.21 at 10:18 pm
@31,
that’s the ultimate goal, to be realized in the full-blow communist society with no state and radically improved human nature. That … well … that’s something we can safely ignore.
The “according to his contribution” notion (suggested by the same author) is for the intermediate phase. It feels more attainable, I guess. Still an ideal but not completely unrealistic aspiration.
reason 11.07.21 at 10:37 pm
It just occurred to me that one thing that might very well relate to the concept of fairness, is not abusing power. i.e. Treat everybody as though they were your equal. This might be covered by point 4 – but perhaps needs to more explicit.
Ingrid Robeyns 11.08.21 at 6:22 am
Just to let those taking part in the discussion know that I’ve now started to delete comments that are of the category “that’s how toddlers react”. Arguments – fine; if they are mild snarky – OK; but if there is no content left – nope. Read our comments policy in case you are in doubt of what are rules for debate are here.
And thanks to all those adding their views and arguments to the discussion – I’m reading all of it but can’t respond to all of it.
oldster 11.08.21 at 6:51 am
“”I’ve plowed and planted this grain of wheat,
Them that works not, shall not eat,
That’s my credo!” the little bird said,
And that’s why they called her red.
From “The Little Red Hen” by Malvina Reynolds. Some evidence that at least in mid-50s America, this slogan was associated with the left.
Ingrid, I enjoyed reading your essay, in part as an exercise in pedagogy — how much of a complex topic can you get across in 5 minutes. I would say you succeeded in gettin across quite a lot.
Ingrid Robeyns 11.08.21 at 7:41 am
@Ikonoclast/28 – I personally agree to a large extent with what you write. I agree that merit is wildly abused to try to rethorically defend unjustfied inequalities. The real disagreement is in how far one sees the role of ‘luck’ in our lives. If luck cancels out merit, and luck explains both to a large extent our talents (natural lottery) and how they got developed (the surroundings that we didn’t choose), but possibly also effort (differences in our innate disposition to get out of bed and work), then merit becomes dubious as a principle of fairness. Still, I think in the overall evaluation of how we organise society, it has two more limited roles to play: first, it might be a fiction we need in order to motivate ourselves to get work done – in other words, to motivate us to keep giving our best. Robert Frank has written about this aspect in his book ‘Succes and Luck’ – which I highly recommend: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167404/success-and-luck . So the insights that we can rescue might be part of the principles that focus on growing the pie; but these are, strictly speaking, not principles of fairness. The second point that I think can be rescued as part of fairness, is that the number of hours one puts in (or otherwise the level of difficulty of the work), does require compensation. That’s part of ‘effort’. That in itself seems to me a matter of fairness.
But my hunch is that principles at a level that resonate with what citizens are used to reason in (hence, not ‘technical philosophical’ principles), are often a mixture of fairness and concerns of aggregation/overall welfare etc.
Ingrid Robeyns 11.08.21 at 7:50 am
Thanks Oldster@35 – it is a very different genre of writing than what we’re expected to do as academic philosophers – but I’m highly motivated to get better at this – and I’m glad you think I succeeded with this one.
Gorgonzola Petrovna 11.08.21 at 8:41 am
@35,
It’s а Commandment of Socialism, according to Lenin. There was a law against social parasitism in the Soviet Union; Joseph Brodsky’s conviction being the most famous (or infamous, if you prefer) case. He was sentenced to work at a remote farm, later describing his experience there as the best time in his life. According to one of his biographers, it formed him as a poet.
@nastywoman 11.08.21 at 12:19 pm
@38
‘It’s а Commandment of Socialism, according to Lenin’.
Yes – and as somebody on the Internet once wrote:
‘You are realising, I hope, that Mr. Lenin, was speaking about work on behalf and under the direction of State(bolsheviks) and the bolsheviks were at the time controlling(rationing) the supply of food. And the rations were at subsistence levels, except for bolsheviks themselves.
And, yes, they looted it (the food) from Russian peasants (the in-famous prod-otriads), but, maybe, that’s just another detail’.
So let’s NOT exactly see Lenin as someone who cared about work ethics –
AND as even on Wikipedia it’s written:
‘According to Vladimir Lenin, “He who does not work shall not eat” is a necessary principle under socialism, the preliminary phase of the evolution towards communist society. The phrase appears in his 1917 work, The State and Revolution. Through this slogan Lenin explains that in socialist states only productive individuals could be allowed access to the articles of consumption.
The socialist principle, “He who does not work shall not eat”, is already realized; the other socialist principle, “An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor”, is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish “bourgeois law”, which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products. This is a “defect” according to Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. (Chapter 5, Section 3, “The First Phase of Communist Society”) In Lenin’s writing, this was directed at the bourgeoisie, as well as “those who shirk their work”.[5][6]
So – why? –
AGAIN! –
do Right-Wingers use “He who does not work shall not eat” as an argument against the very empathetic and and social policies of the so called ‘Left’?
Because it’s…
‘clownish’? -(and I just used this word because it was used against the argument ‘that it is NOT fair NOT to feed the children’)
Trader Joe 11.08.21 at 12:42 pm
The difficulty of ‘fairness’ is how often it is in the eye of the beholder rather than the consensus of the masses. Indeed fairness is such a nebulous concept that perhaps it is “unfairness†that should actually be defined.
Why is it that Footballers always make more than Nurses and Teachers? This is true in every nation, rich or poor, socialist, capitalist, liberal or conservative.
If you polled people “Is this fair?†I expect it would never fetch a majority and yet it is the case that this unfairness exists practically universally and nary a politician nor activist has ever taken to the streets to seek its change.
Somehow there must be a collective willingness to abide this particular unfairness in service of some intangible. If this unfairness is acceptable, why not another, why not the next. Which un-fairness is the one that ultimately needs addressed – maybe that’s where fairness begins.
MisterMr 11.08.21 at 1:42 pm
My understanding is that “those who shall not work shall not eat” is indeed a quote from Lenin. In context, “those who do not work” are the capitalists, who are supposed to sit on big liles of money/capital and eat from unearned income (profit/interest). They are, in Lenin’s view, parasites of sorts.
Later on, Ayn Rand, who was soviet educated and therefore presumably learnt the sentence at school, reused it in a different context: in Rand’s view the government, and people on welfare, are the parasites, while the capitalists are the one producing the stuff and working.
Probably most people in USA today associate the quote to Ayn Rand, and don’t get the irony (I find this very ironic, honestly).
MisterMr 11.08.21 at 1:52 pm
The origin of the quote and the actual context of Lenin’s saying:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat
Gorgonzola Petrovna 11.08.21 at 2:42 pm
@42
In respect to a “fair distribution”, Lenin’s The State and Revolution (from your wikipedia link) expands upon Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme.
If you translate the Russian version of that page you’ll find that the ‘won’t work – shall not eat’ slogan appeared in multiple Lenin’s works and in several versions of the Soviet Constitution. I’ve heard it, and seen it on posters, a million times. I’m surprised. I’ve never expected this to be controversial.
JimV 11.08.21 at 4:03 pm
The “do unto others” principle is I think more complex than it might appear. It works both ways, and therefore might require iteration to converge on a solution. That is, the person done unto should also consider the act from the perspective of the person who is doing unto, before deciding how he or she would be done unto.. Then a lot of external factors have to be considered, which might involve other people. (As exposited in the post.) Still I think it all stems from that basic principle, and the rest is doing the math for a particular case.
Of course, as somebody said, math is hard, and as Einstein said, all mathematicians make mistakes.
diodotos 11.08.21 at 4:46 pm
Shoudln’t ‘families’ or ‘households’ head the list of ‘areas that have effects on the division of the benefits and burdens in society’? I am thinking especially of the work of Stein Ringen on the size of non-monetary economic activity within households, fairness to children etc. His key books would be the 2005 edition of Citizens, Families and Reform, and the 2007 What is Democracy For?
nastywoman 11.08.21 at 4:46 pm
@42
‘I’m surprised. I’ve never expected this to be controversial’.
Me TOO –
as I love to joke:
He Rich Right-Winger who does not work neither shall he eat Avocado Toast.
steven t johnson 11.08.21 at 5:00 pm
It’s not clear the Golden Rule would “work” in the bedroom, where maybe fairness is not doing unto others what you would have them do to you. The only real moral is, no rule covers all cases. And if you have more rules, then you have lawyers.
As to “who does not work, shall not eat,” it’s like the Declaration of Independence: The author may have a mental reservation as to who is being talked about. I don’t think anyone, not even Gorgonzola Petrovna, meant to include infants and children, the sick and the old in “who.” But I suppose uncharitable readings are the funnest. I do think there are also mental reservations for what counts as “work,” which includes soldiers and policemen and rentiers and usurers…but often doesn’t include people taking care of infants and children, the sick and the old. But I don’t suppose such are often an issue.
Lastly, as to “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs,” I think “needs” is never meant to be read as “wishes,” much less “whims.” But again, uncharitable readings are the funnest. Now I am aware the many are convinced that it is tyranny to expect the strongest to do the heavy lifting. But again, I think insisting on nonsense readings are more about malice. I will say that “according to their abilities,” is remarkably close to the exercise of vital powers, a component of the good life even by individualistic standards. (“Standards?”)
Tm 11.08.21 at 9:45 pm
Confusing Social Darwinism with socialism was a very common mistake (and perhaps still is). What originally may have been meant as a critique of the ruling class could easily be turned into justification for the elimination of „unnütze Esser“.
The current version of this is Republicans fighting against unemployment benefits because it makes poor people lazy, not to mention welfare queens driving Mercedes. I suspect very few people alive would even think of anticapitalism or socialism when they hear that slogan. National Socialism, perhaps.
Tm 11.08.21 at 10:18 pm
Btw the English Wikipedia moves quickly from Jamestown to Lenin, omitting other equally relevant quotes. Here’s a more complete German reference:
https://at.wikimannia.org/Wer_nicht_arbeitet,_soll_auch_nicht_essen
The slogan is really quite interesting, with regard to the history of ideology. Hitler quite agreed with Stalin, Stalin with St. Paul, Lenin with the 19th century utilitarians. Great minds think alike, apparently. Marx and his son-in-law Lafargue had a far wiser understanding of work than most later Marxists.
nastywoman 11.09.21 at 5:42 am
@47
I don’t think anyone, not even Gorgonzola Petrovna, meant to include infants and children, the sick and the old in “who.â€
Thats ‘the problem’ – as she did -(like the stereotypical US Right-Winger) – a very ‘uncharitable (and ‘funny’?) reading’ of: ‘He who does not work, neither shall he eat.
Right?
As she (supposedly) told US about ‘the Irony’ of ‘Lenin’ and THE Communists inventing – what US Right-Wingers use as their ‘Fairness argument’ against Biden’s Policies for Children and Families.
Right?
And thinking about it?
That actually wasn’t as ‘funny’… as telling her that Lenin actually thought it would be unfair IF the Bourgeoisie would eat without working.
Right?
Gorgonzola Petrovna 11.09.21 at 8:36 am
The overwhelming rejection of the most basic socialist principle in this thread is amazing.
I’ve seen in the news the guaranteed basic income proposal defeated in Switzerland, with 77% against. I wasn’t surprised. Working people produce the things we consume. They get some of it back, but not all. The dominant ideology does its best to legitimize the status quo, and it holds. But if you start, openly, taking things produced by the working stiff, to give them to persons refusing to engage in socially productive work, the working stiff is going to get pissed. Precisely because of its glaring unfairness, imo.
nastywoman 11.09.21 at 9:46 am
OR as Lenin (seriously wrote:
(Against not only Russian ‘Right-Wingers’)
‘Tausenderlei Formen und Methoden der praktischen Rechnungsführung und Kontrolle über die Reichen, über die Gauner und Müßiggänger müssen von den Kommunen selber, von en kleinen Zellen in Stadt und Land ausgearbeitet und in der Praxis erprobt werden. Mannigfaltigkeit ist hier eine Bürgschaft für Lebensfähigkeit, Gewähr für die Erreichung des gemeinsamen, einheitlichen Ziels: der Säuberung der russischen Erde von allem Ungeziefer, von den Flöhen – den Gaunern, von den Wanzen – den Reichen usw. usf. An einem Ort wird man zehn Reiche, ein Dutzend Gauner, ein halbes Dutzend Arbeiter, die sich vor der Arbeit drücken (ebenso flegelhaft wie viele Setzer in Petrograd, besonders in den Parteidruckereien) ins Gefängnis stecken. An einem anderen Ort wird man sie die Klosetts reinigen lassen. An einem dritten Ort wird man ihnen nach Abbüßung ihrer Freiheitsstrafe gelbe Pässe aushändigen, damit das ganze Volk sie bis zu ihrer Besserung als schädliche Elemente überwache. An einem vierten Ort wird man einen von zehn, die sich des Parasitentums schuldig gemacht haben, auf der Stelle erschießen. An einem fünften Ort wird man eine Kombination verschiedener Mittel ersinnen und zum Beispiel durch eine bedingte Freilassung eine rasche Besserung jener Elemente unter den Reichen, den bürgerlichen Intellektuellen, den Gaunern und Rowdys erzielen, die der Besserung fähig sind. Je mannigfaltiger, desto besser, desto reicher wird die allgemeine Erfahrung sein, desto sicherer und rascher wird der Erfolg des Sozialismus sein, desto leichter wird die Praxis – denn nur die Praxis ist dazu imstande – die besten Methoden und Mittel des Kampfes herauszuarbeiten.“
nastywoman 11.09.21 at 1:34 pm
@51
‘But if you start, openly, taking things produced by the working stiff, to give them to persons refusing to engage in socially productive work, the working stiff is going to get pissed. Precisely because of its glaring unfairness, imo”.
But as a few Revolutions -(and Lenin) has proven:
If YOU (or Marie Antoinette) start, openly, taking things produced by the working stiff, to give them to YOURSELF refusing to engage in socially productive work, the working stiff is going to get pissed. Precisely because of its glaring unfairness, imo”.
And it was YOU who quoted Lenin – Right?
nastywoman 11.09.21 at 1:42 pm
and about:
‘I’ve seen in the news the guaranteed basic income proposal defeated in Switzerland, with 77% against. I wasn’t surprised’.
So let’s talk about the proposal that ‘a Boss’ shouldn’t earn more than 12 times what his lowest ‘working stiff’ earns –
I was really surprised about the amount of pretty rich and wealthy Swiss who thought it actually is unfair if ‘a Boss’ earns more than 12 times what his lowest working stiff earns and lets hope that – better sooner than later – over 30 percent of Rich Americans will agree with them.
(+ all of our Lenin quoting Right-Wing Republicans)
reason 11.09.21 at 1:53 pm
GP @51
(Just to be clear – I’m neither Marxist nor Christian – nor Jewish for that matter. I don’t feel particularly bound by ancient texts.)
But most goods are not produced by normal working stiffs – and especially so in Switzerland. But I think this is due to a massive misunderstanding of what UBI actually does. It frees the average working stiff from having to worry about supporting other people – which he has to do one way or another. It simplifies the tax/social security system and makes it fairer by reducing the burden carried by tax deductions to allow for the burden of basic necessities. It removes the hideous inequity of “poverty traps” caused by high marginal rates associated with means tested benefits. I despair of humans that they fail to understand this.
nastywoman 11.09.21 at 1:54 pm
AND in conclusion and somehow what I asked before about ‘Fairness’
How in the world do the worlds crazy Right-Wingers always manage to distract our working stiffs from starting another – and this time – a ‘sustainable revolution’ –
by getting our ‘working stiffs’ (P,s word) all worked up against each other and ALL of the other – unemployed – or even more unfortunate Souls in our Societies?
Or shouldn’t teaching THAT IT IS NOT FAIR to do that – Petrovna – the first principle of ‘Fairness’?
tm 11.09.21 at 2:08 pm
51: As I thought, this has nothing to do with socialism, it’s pure fascism. Let the unnütze Esser starve. An ideology tailor-made to protect the ruling class, whose “social productiveness” is obviously never questioned.
Let’s hear from the founder of “socialism” (sensu Gorgo), Adolf Hitler: “Wer nicht arbeitet, soll nicht essen. Und wer nicht um sein Leben kämpft, soll nicht auf dieser Erde leben. Nur dem Starken, dem Fleißigen und dem Mutigen gebührt ein Sitz hinieden.”
tm 11.09.21 at 4:10 pm
P.S. Say what you want about the Swiss but they don’t let people starve…
P.P.S I regret this thread derail started at 13 – it has little to do with fairness – but out of respect to the victims of Stalin, let’s be clear that the millions of Soviet citizens starved to death under Stalinism were emphatically not guilty of refusal to work, and not members of the socially unproductive apparatchik class.
nastywoman 11.10.21 at 6:31 am
@
‘it has little to do with fairness’
But saying:
‘He Rich Right-Winger who does not work neither shall he eat Avocado Toast’ –
has a lot to do with ‘Fairness’ and it explains it very well in just a few seconds…
Ingrid Robeyns 11.10.21 at 6:34 pm
I agree with tm @58’s view that the thread derailed – a real shame since there were some other good comments. I hereby close the thread, and am planning to keep derailers out in the future.
Comments on this entry are closed.