Natalie Bennett has discovered freecycle – a way of getting rid of stuff you don’t want and either can’t be bothered to sell it, or have a social conscious. Perhaps because of its social objective, she thinks it’s an endorsement of Marx:
I’ve always thought that the valuable bit of Marx is that simple but powerful concept: “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs“, and that, with absolutely minimal organisation and absolutely no officialdom, is what freecycle delivers. Plus more: it delivers space and convenience to those who feel these are hard to find, and it brings together different elements of society in a constructive, cooperative way
I’m missing something here. In her second sentence Natalie could be describing a free market, yet she thinks freecycle is a modern interpretation of Marx. The problem of of course is that in true Marxism, a persons needs weren’t to be interpreted by a mere individual, but by a collective conscience, motivated by a social goal. Freecycle, by linking individuals and giving them the power to choose who gets what is just the free market in action; rationing may not occur through price as we know it, but at least it’s left to the wisdom of the individual. Not something Marx completely endorsed.
I have often encountered this. People seem to think capitalism and free markets means Coke, McDonalds and Exxon, while mutually beneficial cooperation is socialism.
I’ve never understood why “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is an attractive idea. It sounds terrifying: you will be stripped of anything that is not absolutely necessary to keep you alive, and you will be worked until you collapse from exhaustion.