From Each According to His Abilities; T. Shelly

FEE Classic Reprint "From Each According to His Abilities. . ." by Thomas J. Shelly A s a teacher, I found that the socialist communist idea of taking "from each according to his abilities," and giving "to each according to his needs" was generally accepted without question by most stu dents. In an effort to explain the fallacy in this theory, I sometimes tried this approach: When one of the brighter or harder working students made a grade of 95 on a test, I suggested that I take away 20 points and give them to a student who had made only 55 points on his test. Thus each would contribute according to his abilities and since both would have a passing mark each would receive according to his needs. Mter I juggled the grades of all the other students in this fashion, the result was usually a "common ownership" grade of between 75 and 80-the minimum needed for passing, or for survival. Then I specu lated with the students as to the probable results if I actually used the socialistic theory for grading papers.

First, the highly productive studentsThe late Mr. Shelly was a high school teacher in Yonkers, New York. This essay, first published in 1951 as HA Lesson in Socialism," was a popular FEE reprint for many years. and they are always a minority in school as well as in life-would soon lose all incentive for producing. Why strive to make a high grade if part of it is taken from you by "authority" and given to someone else? Second, the less productive students-a majority in school as elsewhere-would, for a time, be relieved of the necessity to study or to produce. This socialist-communist sys tem would continue until the high producers had sunk-or had been driven down-to the level of the low producers. At that point, in order for anyone to survive, the "authority" would have no alternative but to begin a system of compulsory labor and punish ments against even the low producers. They, of course, would then complain bit terly, but without understanding.

Finally I returned the discussion to the ideas of freedom and enterprise-the mar ket economy-where each person has free dom of choice and is responsible for his own decisions and welfare. Gratifyingly enough, most of my students then understood what I meant when I ex plained that socialism-even in a democra cy-would eventually result in a livingdeath for all except the" authorities" and a few of their favorite lackeys. D 155 Potomac Principles The Morality of Freedom F reedom. Presumably every reader of The Freeman is committed to this prin ciple. But why? What good is it? After I endorsed a federal budget "train wreck," arguing that closing down the gov ernment would help people appreciate the value offreedom, one correspondent chided me: "What has freedom ever done for African-Americans?" The question is im portant. Consider the problems of poverty and crime. Consider the scourge of slavery and discrimination. Of what relevance is our abstract commitment to liberty?