 Mae'r rai'r anthefynnol a ymddangos i'w tanlygeddol i'r CO1 eu cythaith Unrhywbeth bod ni'n dweud rhoi cyffredinol sy'n meddwl gyda'i ei wneud yr hynny yw gweld i'r catholismu fydd yn yw'r cystafel ystod yn rhan am bod gyda'r cystafel a ddylai negbethau i'r wneud i ddau unrhyw gwych i gynnwys ti ar wahanol oherwydd i ff shapedr a'u gwahanol i'r cyfrifyddedol i'r cystafel. Mae gennym ei wneud ddag i chi, a'n ddweud ar ynghyd ym a'i ddim yn ddau'r cynllunio. Dwi'n gofio'n ymddych chi'n gael. Gweithio i gael ymddych chi'n gweithio a'u gwellwch o'r pandegorol. Mae'n ddweud yma'n gweithio. Mae'n ddweud o'r cymdeithas Caelin sy'n dweud o'r cwestiynau a'r cyfrwyng o'r cyfrwyng, ymddych chi'n dysgu, ac mae'n ddweud. Rwy'n rhaid, mae'r llyfr o'r cyfrwyng yw'r cyfrwyng yn ymddych chi'n ddweud. I hope no-one here is expecting a talk about the in-depth mechanics of how a planned economy would work in the hope of maybe obtaining a future job in the civil service of a future worker's state. In the same way you'd be quite disappointed, I think, if you read capital as part of a course on business management. Because if you read capital what you see is instead, Marx isn't explaining how businesses work. What he's explaining is looking at capitalism, the development of capitalism, particularly focusing on Britain, where the process was most advanced at his time, and using this analysis to draw out the fundamental economic laws and dynamics of the capitalist system. And what Marx points out is that every society really can be characterised by its mode of production, each with its own particular economic laws and tendencies. And these are objective forces that govern the motion of society's resources and wealth, including means of production and labour. Wealth under capitalism, he points out, appears as an immense collection of commodities, goods and services that are produced for exchange. And this exchange, he points out, takes place on the basis of value. That is to say the socially necessary labour time contained within such commodities. And it is this, in essence, that is the law of value, the law that operates blindly and anarchically behind the backs of us all. But which, in doing so, regulates the capitalist economy and governs its motion. It determines the allocation of capital across industries and sectors. It allocates the division of labour globally and it also contributes towards the circulation and the value of money. And the purpose of today's discussion, therefore, is really to apply the same Marxist method of analysis to the Soviet economy and to use this to understand the laws and dynamics of a planned economy, not only so we can make sense of the problems that the Bolsheviks faced and understand also phenomena like the rise of Stalinism, but also to help us understand the task that will face a future worker's state and to hopefully shed some light on the path that we need to take in order to reach the goal of full, genuine communism. Now, firstly, we need to understand the position that Lenin and the Bolsheviks found themselves in 1917. Almost exactly 106 years ago, Lenin ascended to the rostrum of the all-Russian Congress of Soviets and he said we shall now proceed to construct the new socialist order. But he said these words in full knowledge that actually the conditions for socialism, for genuine socialism, did not exist in Russia at this time. Trotsky had characterised the economy of the Tsarist empire as one of combined and uneven development. In other words, what you had was these islands of modern industry in a sea of backward primitive agriculture. You had a working class that was numerically and culturally very weak, could barely read and write, and this was surrounded by the vast bulk of the population which was scattered peasants spread across 20 to 25 million households. By contrast, Marx and Lenin had highlighted how socialism, the lower or initial phase or stage of communism, required a high level of development of the productive forces. Socialism would require advanced technology and industry, large-scale industry, technology, productivity and educated working class. Only on this basis would workers have the time and the skills and the know-how necessary to control, run and plan the economy. And such conditions did exist globally. This was shown by the presence of huge multinational monopolies that were already developed at this time, huge capitalist trusts. It was also shown by World War I itself where vast sections of the economy in the advanced capitalist countries were being planned by the state, albeit for imperialist ends. But in Russia, these conditions didn't exist. What you had were conditions of backwardness, as I said. And as Marx had pointed out, as long as there is scarcity, as long as want is generalised, all the old crap will revive. For another example of this, we can see the social last night. As soon as the food ran out, we rapidly descended into barbarism. Now, in this respect, Lenin and Trotsky pointed out that, as I say, the conditions for socialism didn't exist. What you had in the Soviet economy was not a socialist economy or a communist one, but a transitional economy between capitalism and socialism. And the task of the economy of the state, the worker's state, was to build up the productive forces. To build up the productive forces, the point where money, where the state, where class antagonisms could begin to wither away. And of course, the main task facing the Bolsheviks in this respect was to try and spread the world revolution to the advanced capitalist countries. But we know that this didn't happen. The Soviet Union remained isolated, a bureaucracy developed, and this began to strangle the planned economy and the revolution, leading eventually to the USSR's collapse. Now, in this respect, we can say that Russia's economic backwardness was really both the mother of the Russian revolution and also its grave digger. The Tsarist empire had been particularly hit hard by the First World War. You had huge shortages and inflation in the cities, and it was this that led to the outbreak first of the February revolution and then obviously the October revolution in 1917. It meant, however, that the Bolsheviks had taken over in a country that was economically devastated and really on the verge of breakdown and collapse. And world war was very quickly replaced by the chaos of civil war. The immediate task in these conditions wasn't the construction of socialism. It was merely just to prevent this utter collapse in the economy. Certain initial socialist steps were taken, however. The Soviet government nationalised the banks and implemented a state monopoly over foreign trade. And this was vital for the defence of the young workers' state because you needed the control of finance and foreign trade. But Lenin's plans initially were not that large amounts of industry would be nationalised as some ultra-lefts in the Bolsheviks were actually demanding at the time. Firstly, he pointed out the workers' state in general was far too weak to be able to plan the economy on a country-wide level. But also in the factories themselves, workers did not have the time and the know-how to run and plan industry for themselves. Instead, therefore, Lenin initially envisaged actually the old managers remaining in charge and the workers would supervise the old managers and learn from them how to run industry. At the same time, workers themselves actually saw often workers' control in a more syndicalist sense and in a maybe more cooperative sense in how people talk about cooperatives today. And in some cases, there are even reports that having taken over the factories, they then believed these belonged to them and started selling off assets in order to try and make ends meet. So you see this is the real conditions that the Soviet government faced. And as the civil war and the imperialist aggression intensified, the Soviet government was actually forced to nationalise more industry than it initially attended. They set up what was known as the Supreme Council of National Economy of Vazenka in Russian. Apologies if I've mangled that to any of our Russian-speaking comrades. They also started to take over nationalised industries and organise them in trusts known as Glavki. And these were really the first elements of planning within the Soviet economy. But this was all taking place in the years 1918 to 1920, which were known as the period of war communism. And this was really a siege mentality economy. It was an economy of a country under siege. And it was a desperate attempt in this respect to try and channel what scarce resources there were towards military ends, towards military industries and towards the Red Army. The main problem was obviously the lack of food for soldiers and for industrial workers. The government therefore launched a campaign initially against the Kulaks, the rich peasants who were speculating and hoarding with grain. But there wasn't enough even on this basis to feed the workers and soldiers. And so they had to resort to grain requisitioning, which is in other words compulsory deliveries of grain at fixed prices, which in effect were meaningless because money had become worthless through inflation. And all of this meant huge tensions created in the countryside and huge tensions between the countryside and the cities, between the peasants and the workers state. And this whole war communism period was also accompanied by other extreme measures out of necessity. Vast waves of industry were being nationalised, under tight centralised control in order to keep control of the scarce resources there were. There was a reliance on thousands of old czarist officials and experts because the workers didn't have the know-how to run industry in the state. And there was also the mobilisation of labour like an economic resource using the trade unions. And all of this was necessary to prevent this breakdown in the economy, to try and overcome the bottlenecks that were proliferating across the economy. But all of this also led to outcries from more ultra-left types within the Bolsheviks, particularly a group known as the so-called workers opposition. And these people couldn't understand why Lenin and the Bolsheviks and the government weren't just going ahead and implementing socialism and workers control. On the other hand, there was also a layer of ultra-lefts who looked more positively upon some of the more extreme measures associated with war communism. For example, to fund state expenditure in these desperate conditions, the government was resorting to money printing, furiously printing money, which effectively led to the ruble becoming completely worthless through inflation. And therefore the economy increasingly began to operate without money. The state started providing free rations and public services like canteens and transport. You had workers being paid in kind. You had private trade being abolished and prices being fixed. And you had nationalised industries actually swapping directly with each other, with Vazenka working out the difference and updating the books accordingly. And all of the ultra-lefts, they mistakenly saw this state intervention as somehow a stepping stone towards genuine communism. They saw war communism as, as I say, a stage in the direction of genuine communism. Now this mistaken view really highlights the importance for us to have a materialist and dialectical understanding of economic laws and how they rise and fall. The law of value and its expression in terms of money and markets is not something that can simply be abolished by decree through price controls or through rationing. All of this only leads to worse shortages and to inflation and black markets as you saw not only in war communism but in subsequent periods where similar measures were attempted. Such economic laws at the end of the day reflect objective pressures which arise for particular material conditions. And to eliminate these pressures you therefore have to tackle the conditions that have given rise to them in the first place. In the same way, money is a measure of value. It's a means of exchange and it's a tool therefore in a system of commodity production exchange. You can't get rid of the tool until it's become obsolete and redundant. And in this case with widespread scarcity, with barter taking place across the economy, it's very clear that the conditions did not exist under war communism for the withering away of commodities, of money and of the law of value. And in other words, what you saw really was that state ownership and will power alone are not enough to bring about socialism. This was very much still a transitional economy subject to the laws of capitalism, not socialism or real communism. And all of this was really implicitly recognised in early 1921 with the debates and the turn towards the new economic policy. This was primarily a means of trying to address these political tensions that were developing in the countryside. You had the outbreak of peasant rebellions, most famously Constadt. But it was also an attempt to try and rebuild the economy out of the devastation after the civil war, particularly by getting food to the cities and to the industrial workers. And to do this, peasants were no longer compelled to hand over their grain but were incentivised to produce by allowing them to sell their surplus for a profit. But this first step logically gave rise to a number of other steps that no one fully anticipated in advance. Pulling at this first thread of agriculture, you saw the whole of war communism beginning to unravel. Now, first up, the peasants had to be kept happy by providing them with consumer goods that they could buy with newly obtained money. But heavy industry was destroyed and couldn't provide this. And therefore the government was forced to lean more and more on petty private producers, artisans, things like this to produce consumer goods for the villages. Similarly, private trade needed to be restored in order to distribute these new consumer goods across the country. And this gave rise to a group known as the net men, not a group per se, but hundreds and thousands of these traders, middlemen, speculators and so forth who were responsible for distribution. And of course you had the rich peasants, the coulacks, who were benefiting from this market restoration in the countryside. And all of these layers together, these petty bourgeois layers were nurtured, were strengthened by the NEP, the coulacks, the net men, the artisans and so forth. And this had political consequences we'll see later. Next up, the currency had to be stabilised. You needed steady prices in a market system. And this meant the government had to slash state spending and stop printing money. But this in turn meant all the state-owned enterprises needed to cut their spending. And so what the government did was introduce a policy known as rationalisation, which in other words meant that all these enterprises suddenly had to operate on commercial principles, trading on the market, operating their books independently, and cutting costs if they couldn't keep their heads above the water. And what this meant for the workers in those industries was mass sacking. You now had a situation where having previously been guaranteed a job and some meager rations at least, now you had workers facing the market having to work for a wage and potentially being put on the scrap heap of unemployment. In other words, what you saw was very quickly the logic of capitalism spread across the whole economy just after this introduction of the market in agriculture. And what this really highlights to us is how the different parts of any economic system are interconnected. They are not isolated or arbitrary. Just as the different elements of war communism had been bound together, so were the various components of the NEP. In both cases we had a form of a transitional economy which had not escaped the laws of value. And in this sense the law of value asserted itself not only internally in terms of the black markets and the scarcity and the shortages, but also through external pressures, the pressure of low prices on the world market. And all of this contains, I think, important lessons for us today. Firstly, it's a lesson against the reformists who think you can mix and match different parts of economic systems together, who think that austerity in these sorts of things are ideological. What you had in the NEP was effectively austerity and monetarism, not out of ideology but out of necessity. I think this period is also very instructive to those today in places like Cuba and China who talk about the NEP as somehow a positive way forward in these sorts of countries. Because this is the point. Lenin did not see the NEP as a way forward. But why then, given all these problems, did Lenin and Trotsky and the rest of the Bolsheviks support the introduction of the NEP? They could see these dangers, so why did they support it? Lenin described it as a retreat, not as a way forward, but as a retreat, a necessary retreat given the stalling of the world revolution in other countries. The revolution had not spread as they had anticipated. Therefore, the NEP was really a lifeline. It was an attempt to, sorry, by time until a lifeline could come about through the spread of the world revolution. Now, at the same time, Lenin and Trotsky could see this strengthening of these capitalist elements in the Soviet Union that was coming about because of the NEP. And also how this was aiding the rise of the bureaucracy at the time. And therefore, Lenin, in his final struggle really, and later this struggle was continued by Trotsky and the Left Opposition, waged a political campaign to try and root out careerism and bureaucracy in the state and in the party. In other words, they were going to make economic concessions to the peasantry and the petty bourgeois layers they needed to politically strengthen the workers' state. On the other hand, they were also recognizing that they weren't completely helpless in the face of the law of value. They had control still over the major levers of the economy, the heavy industries and obviously the banks and the state monopoly of foreign trade. And what Lenin and Trotsky called for was to use these levers in the hands of the workers' state to try and tilt the balance in favour of workers and of industry and to try and accelerate industrialization, including the collectivization, the incentivized collectivization and modernization electrification of the agriculture in the countryside. What Trotsky explained is that, yes, the law of value still operated in the Soviet economy, asserting itself through money and markets. But its potency had been blunted by state ownership and control, which effectively imposed a second regulator on the economy in the form of conscious planning and allocation of resources. And it was these competing pressures between the market on one side and between state planning on the other that really represented a key feature in the transitional economy. Now, after Lenin's death in 1924, the NEP continued, and this question of industrialization became one of the main battlegrounds in the struggle between the left opposition and the Stalinist bureaucracy. By 1925-26, the economy had largely recovered to its pre-war levels in terms of industrial and agricultural output, and debate really became now a question of where next, where next for the Soviet economy and its reconstruction. At this point, Stalin was now aligned with Bakharin and the right opposition, and they were calling for socialism in one country. They were calling for a continuation of the NEP, and they were calling for a slow pace of industrialization. Trotsky and the left opposition, on the other hand, were calling for world revolution. They were warning about the political dangers of the NEP in terms of the rising strength of the Kulaks and the Netmen, and they were calling for an ambitious and transformative programme of industrialization. Now, these positions weren't just a question of point scoring. It wasn't just arbitrary that one side supported this and one side supported the other. At root, these different stances, these positions reflected different class pressures and economic forces. You had, on the one side, the Stalinists who were leaning at this point on the petty bourgeois layers for their own interests. On the other side, the petty bourgeois layers in turn should add more obviously looking towards the market. On the other side, you had the left opposition who were basing themselves on the worker state, strengthening the worker state, and calling for policies that would boost socialist planning and the elements of socialist planning that did exist. This was also reflected, these differences were reflected also in the different theoretical approaches, or really the lack thereof in the case of Stalin and Bacaran. The Stalinist bureaucracy was very pragmatic, if you like. They were empirical philosophically. They had no theory as a guide to action, and therefore they constantly, unconsciously, adapted themselves to the laws of capitalism. Bacaran, for example, suggested that the Soviet Union could ride into socialism on a peasant nag using the NEP, and he opposed any strategy that might lead to any sort of rift with the peasantry in the countryside. This is why the Stalinist had these conservative targets in terms of economic growth. It reflected these class pressures and this empirical outlook. Because in order to avoid a rift with the peasantry, they couldn't tax them to try and fund state industry. Instead, they said state industry had to sell finance. But state industry was extremely weak. It could barely produce any surplus. So how was it going to sell finance further investment and growth? This basically guaranteed, therefore, this self-financing of industry position they put forward. It guaranteed a slow rate of growth, and in turn then a widening gap between the Soviet economy and the advanced capitalist powers, putting more pressure from the world market onto the Soviet economy. Now also, Bacaran and Stalin, at this point, as I said, they were slaves to the market, and the logic of the market, as the bourgeois call it, comparative advantage, is that the Soviet economy should base itself on low productivity agricultural labour and exports, rather than developing industry. This is where they had a comparative advantage, if you like, with an abundance of labour and scarce amounts of machinery. And therefore, the logic of the market was not industrialisation, but to remain backward and primitive. And taken together, all of these pressures meant that further accumulation on the basis of the Stalinist programme would not lead to a strengthening of the workers' state and industrialisation, but actually a strengthening of the Kulaks, the rich peasants, and that would embolden them. And ultimately Trotsky and his supporters warned it would lead to the restoration of capitalism, not to industrialisation and Russia becoming a modern powerhouse. Now Trotsky and his supporters are saying they warned about all of this, and what they called for instead was for the law of value to be combated consciously by a counterfailing, what they called, law of primitive socialist accumulation. And this was an analogy with Marx's analysis of primitive accumulation under capitalism, which he outlines in capital. Marx outlines how in the early days of capitalism, when the bourgeois was first coming into being and trying to gather together the resources for its own industrialisation, it would get these resources from its colonies, from the countryside, from the enclosure of the commons and other policies, and using the lever, the force of the state to try and extract these resources. And this was where the analogy comes in with primitive socialist accumulation. Trotsky and his supporters were saying what the workers' state needed to do was use the levers at its disposal to get these resources from the non-state sector, from particularly the countryside, to fund industrialisation. And in other words, what they were proposing was taxes, tariffs, prices, using the state monopoly of foreign trade, the control of the banks and the industries and so forth, in order to enact an unfair exchange, in other words to oppose the law of value, which would suggest a fair exchange. And all of this was the material basis for the Left Opposition's programme of ambitious growth targets and five-year plans, which the Stalinists at this point were denouncing as completely unrealistic. In other words, what Trotsky and the Left Opposition were saying was that on the one hand you needed to consciously recognise the law of value and try and combat it. On the other hand you need to recognise there's another objective necessity facing the Soviet Union if it wants to industrialise and that requires this programme of primitive socialist accumulation all the way up until the point where genuine socialism would be possible. In essence what Trotsky was saying was that there was a battle between the old mode of production and the new society struggling to be born, a struggle that could only be won ultimately through the success and the spread of the world revolution. Now this theoretical debate very quickly became very concrete. Trotsky and the Left Opposition were expelled in late 1927 by the Stalinists, but their warnings quickly played out with the development of a new grain crisis that winter. What you'd seen in the NEP years was a mass migration actually of peasants into the cities to help fuel industrialisation, but these people needed to be fed and that meant extra pressure on food production and food production couldn't keep up on the basis of this scattered primitive agriculture that existed in the USSR at a time. What was required Trotsky and the Left Opposition appointed out was to try and incentivise collectivisation so that you could modernise and electrify agriculture and on this basis only could you solve this contradiction of feeding the workers in the cities. But what you saw was that Stalin faced with this contradiction instead implemented the Left Opposition's programme but in a completely bureaucratic caricatured reactionary manner he pushed through forced collectivisation and called for the liquidation of the Kulaks as a class and this only made the food crisis worse leading to huge falls in agricultural output and ultimately to millions dying of starvation and disease. Now having defeated the Left Opposition, Stalin went and turned against the right. He began to admonish Bukharin for adapting himself to bourgeois tendencies and he abolished the NEP in favour of hyper-ambitious targets in terms of a new five-year plan. Now more right-wing Soviet economists at the time who were more in favour of the market there was a group known as the geneticists and they believed that planning should effectively be like forecasting the weather just trying to predict organic natural changes, spontaneous changes. On the other side, there was a group known as the teleologists who believed that the role of planning should actually be to try and set targets and goals and then mould, consciously mould industry and society in order to reach these and it was on this basis that Stalin formed the five-year plan. It was a completely subjectivist outlook in other words an outlook which believed that planning simply required willpower and determination and the first five-year plan was launched in October 1928 on this basis. We should say despite all these limitations these bureaucratic limitations the five-year plan and its successor brought about huge achievements and advances for the Soviet economy and for Soviet society. Even bourgeois estimates which are probably quite conservative suggest that the economy in this period from 1928 to 37 of the first two five-year plans grew by around 62% to 72% and bear in mind this is in a decade when the advanced capitalist countries are being completely wracked by the Great Depression the biggest crisis in the history of capitalism which did not affect the Soviet economy and it was on this basis because of these advances and achievements that Trotsky defended the planned economy and defended the Soviet Union stating in his masterpiece Revolution Betrayed with the bourgeois economists we no longer have anything to quarrel over socialism has demonstrated its right to victory not on the pages of Das Kapital but in an industrial arena comprising a sixth part of the earth's surface not in the language of dialectics but in the language of steel, cement and electricity now should also add that there were crises in the Soviet economy along the way in this period as there were repeatedly throughout the decades following until the USSR economy's eventual slowdown and collapse but these crises weren't like crises of capitalism which are crises of overproduction overproduction is a contradiction arising because of the lower value because of the nature of profit being the unpaid labour of the working class it's a reflection of an over accumulation of capital but these were crises of under accumulation of scarcity you didn't have a glut of goods flooding the market you had empty supermarket shelves and this arose as I say not because of the laws of capitalism but because of the subjectivist empirical adventurism of the Stalinist and the bureaucratic approach to planning they set these absurd targets with no basis in reality and then strained and broke the economy in order to meet these above all in this respect there was really further evidence that the goal of socialism had not been reached let alone communism it was another reminder that the economy was still a transitional one subject to these objective laws and limits now Trotsky observed all of this from exile both the achievements and the crises of Soviet planning he defended as I say the workers state as a degenerated workers state the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers state but he also highlighted how the Stalinist bureaucratic approach was heightening all the contradictions in the race to meet these arbitrary targets bureaucrats were sacrificing not only the quality of goods but in turn also the quantity workers were being put under back breaking strain and stress and conditions in their workplaces and in their daily lives bottlenecks, disruptions, distortions imbalances were proliferating across the economy the main problem at root was the low level of development of the productive forces arising from the backwardness and the isolation of the USSR but all of this was being amplified by the fetter of bureaucracy and in this respect Trotsky wrote some very illuminating articles at this time pointing out that planning is a science it's a science that has to be understood theoretically but any science also he pointed out has to be tested by checking in this case checking plans against reality and in a transitional economy Trotsky said this meant consciously using market forces and price signals to try and identify shortages and pinch points in the economy and guide in direct investment and resources accordingly in other words until the conditions existed for money to wither away he said it would be a tool the money would be a tool in the hands of the workers state used for economic calculation for planning, for bookkeeping and accounting under the Stalinist however this was impossible they had actually returned to the idea of inflation and money printing and as a result money was useless as an instrument for planning in the Soviet bureaucratic economy at the same time Trotsky pointed out as being a science planning he said is also an art it's an art that has to be learned and mastered by the working class through experience in other words yes you need people who are going to calculate you need economic calculation you need forecasting prediction you need the statistics and the data you need the calculations of material inputs and outputs and balances and so forth but you need all of this to be supplemented by the vital oxygen of workers democracy in order to verify and check these plans against reality the problem was in the Soviet Union any remnants of workers democracy that had remained after war communism and the NEP years was stifled and eventually extinguished by the Stalinist bureaucracy the Soviets, the trade unions, the party all of these became tools of the bureaucracy and vehicles for careerism not tools for workers control and planning now in the early years after the revolution the potential for workers control and planning as I said was limited by the dire material conditions of the time by the lack of time and education needed for workers to be actively involved in running the economy and society later thanks to the advances of the industry and education under the plan these material conditions did come about the problem is by this point the grip of the bureaucracy had become suffocating the life out of the planned economy and leading to the eventual restoration of capitalism today however we can safely say that socialist planning would be far more viable than it ever was in the Soviet Union the working class is far stronger and more educated industry, science and technology are far more developed and in fact we already see immense levels of planning going on inside the big national firms like Amazon with the logistics and supply chains all of that exists already under capitalism ready to be taken over by the working class when it seizes power in this respect you might actually say we can learn more about what socialist planning might look like by studying Walmart than you can from studying the USSR nevertheless we should study the USSR and we should study the Soviet economy showed what is possible and today we can say on the basis of world revolution we could quickly pass through the transitional phase in the space of a few years in a single generation and on that basis we could create a society of super abundance we could massively reduce the hours of the working day allowing workers to fully participate in the running of society we could boost living standards for everyone the problems of the climate crisis and we could liberate humanity in terms of art and culture all of this is possible on the basis of planning today with the level of development of the productive forces and it's on this basis that we after the world revolution will be able to raise the red banner high inscribed with Marx's communist motto from each according to their ability to each according to their needs thank you