Marxists Against Affirmative Action?

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Most people forget about the first part of the saying. But its meaning is rather hard to misconstrue. Abilities are the criteria by which people should produce things in a Marxist society. We plan to show that insofar as affirmative action displaces people with ability in favor of those with less, it may be anti-Marxist.

Before we continue, we must illustrate that affirmative action can result in less qualified people being promoted over more qualified ones.

Suppose there are black and white people in a given area, and a black and a white person apply for a job in that area. Suppose also that there is a quota for a black employee and one job open. Suppose there is a test which correlates 100% with job performance. The black person scores an 80 on the test, and the white scores 90. In this case, the white person does not meet the demand of the quota, so the less qualified black person is given a job above him. The precept of "from each according to his abilities" is ipso facto violated.

(Henceforth we'll call the ability line "the ability precept" and the needs line the "needs precept".)

However, by violating the ability precept, the needs precept may be affected. Suppose the test scores indicate how many units of utility a person would produce on the job in a year. Following the example above, the black person gets the job and produces 80 units. Redistribution of wealth is a fixed cost in a Marxist society, and thus is not covered by this thought experiment. Assume that the black and white person have identical needs. So in the end. the black is given 40 of the 80 units produced, and the white is given 40 as well.

Now suppose the ability precept is followed and affirmative action takes a backseat to ability. Then, the white person is hired, produces 90 units, and the units are redistributed, 45 to the white and 45 to the black. Are not both parties better off?

Of course, for the black person, the prestige of having a job may outweigh receiving 45 instead of 40 units of utility. For example, having the job may be worth, say, 6 units utility, so that 40+6=46 outweighs not having the job but receiving 45.

Depending on how much more productive the white person is than the black person, and how much more wealth he is able to generate, the black person may or may not be better off if the white person gets the job in accordance with his abilities.

The task of the utility-maximizing Marxist is to weigh higher overall production versus the need among blacks for the prestige of having a job. In any case, if one population shows significantly greater ability, there should not be a 50-50 distribution of jobs because the ability precept would be woefully violated, and the capacity to meet the needs precept would also be reduced.

Suppose, in another example, all conditions remain the same except for that the black person scores 90 and the white scores 90 with black people having fewer jobs and being in need of affirmative action. In that case, the marginal benefit of a black getting the job would clearly be the deciding factor because the black man would derive comparatively more utility and the ability precept would not be violated because the black person is equally qualified.

 In sum, affirmative action does not require as a goal the equal per-capita representation of races in high-income jobs to be fully Marxist unless the abilities precept is ignored.