1

The Theory of Plenty

It is presently maintained that a condition of shortages or unfulfilled wants assures competition and
progress in society while a situation of plenty will eliminate tussle between man and man. As wants
increase with man the society leaps to progress putting labour-power to productive use. Since sale price
of a product helps to regulate distribution equitably in a condition of shortages it keeps society in check
from violent change, while leaving unfulfilled wants to create discontentment increasing. In this process,
it is private profit extracted through sale price by the owner of means of production that distorts the
rhythm of social progress and expropriates the labour-power invested in value addition.
The economists, on behalf of the vested interests for keeping a system of expropriation intact,
obnoxiously propound that a situation of plenty turns man lazy affecting the onward march of progress
while mounting profits assure capital formation; a plea in defence of capitalist mode of production-cum-
distribution and constant price rise giving rise to serious alienation. On the other hand, those who
propound a system of production-cum-distribution sans profit go on claiming that a condition of plenty
will lead to no-conflict between man and man i.e. Communism. Arguments from both, however have
many grey areas say, nature of competition, wants etc.
Plenty is a relative term like shortage, an economic category having different characteristics for different
modes of production-cum-distribution. Wants or shortages, like plenty, are not stationary or sterile
categories too. Direct opposition to plenty is shortage, which cannot be quantified for sure. As shortage,
plenty also is a theory of constant sweated labour, strife and disharmony on many counts. We on our
part are raising this question of plenty for a limited purpose of ironing out creases in thought and
practice under conditions of communism. It is in relation to satisfaction of necessity.
Briefly, communism is a situation where there is no need for hoarding of social products, leaving no
space for expropriation of labour-power, eliminating oppression of any kind by any one and human
dignity assured, propounding self-management of community affairs negating thereby the state. It does
not sweat the labour and leaves enough spare time for leisure and social-cultural enrichment; a
condition when one loves to create and does not shirk his/her social obligation. Communism is thus
multidimensional in reach and cannot be confined to economics alone; it covers all aspects of human life
in community setting. It is a situation where man/woman labours in common and consumes what one
requires in a state of peace and harmony without any violent conflict of interests. At last, communism is
thus a life of bliss; when society comes out of long period of nasty existence man/woman had lived
through blunders of times it created for itself, one after the other, for want of cumulative experience
and knowledge in course of its march of progress.
One premise at present for communism has been set to produce beyond necessity in the hope that it
will erase cut-throat competition among consumers in a condition of short production than what is
desired to fulfil necessities for all. It is termed as creating a situation of plenty. This philosophy of plenty
has so far been accepted, without critically examining it. For examining the concept of plenty it is not
2


necessary to quote who propounded it and for what reasons. Setting any prejudice at rest, more
important for us is to examine the formulation on plenty what it will lead the society to.
Plenty is a situation of over production under communism than what is socially needed at a time where
prices are not used to regulate distribution; necessity regulates equitable consumption with no scope
left for hoarding any more by any one. Price under capitalism/socialism is a mechanism to regulate short
supply leading to expropriation and inequality. Price assures a condition of wants for powerful to hoard,
manipulate and thrive, constantly leading to division of society into classes. Nevertheless, to produce for
future is a thesis for hoarding and anti-thesis to social harmony, even under communist set up.
To produce enough for fulfilling the necessities of all requires an optimum use of resources in harmony
with nature and human labour-power in a planned manner, shunting out at a stroke of broom all fancy
absurdities of economists loyal to the capitalist mode. The experiment during twentieth century in USSR
and Mao China had the theories of production and distribution that mainly followed the legacy of Adam
Smith-Ricardo who were high priests of capitalism relying on industry and trade in command with a brief
refinement when distinction was made between private and public capital with little consequence.
Problem arose when target was set to advance means of production for plenty through market
mechanism that is said to be invested with requisite value, which in fact was a plea for restoration of
capitalist mode for developing means of production, conceding that man creates/invents only for
personal gain. It implies that constant development in means of production is not possible if market
force for personal gain is not available, which rests on a fallacious postulation by high priests of capitalist
mode with individualism at its core. It slanders the basic nature of man, while at other times same
people laud man as a social animal. As a result of such vile formulations, socialist/peoples democratic
revolutions in these countries stood betrayed with impunity. The theory of plenty was used by such
protagonists of Marxism for this game of total betrayal to succeed, when they fell for cues from
bourgeois economists on the question of developing means of production through individual interest.
Does it require a stage in between capitalist mode and communist mode if people are ready to go
beyond, provided one is free from the concept of developing production to a stage of plenty through a
tortuous long journey of competitive market which in effect thrives on the economy of wants and
shortages with a corresponding culture of cheats, thugs, hoarders, conspirators and murderers?
Remember, this has been the stock argument for revisionists in USSR and China too to restore capitalist
relations and this has been the plea of Indian communists for supporting the efforts of bourgeois parties
in consolidating capitalist relations leading to degeneration of society into crash individualism instead.