> "The knowledge of the fact that rational economic activity is
> impossible in a socialist commonwealth cannot, of course, be used
> as an argument either for or against socialism. Whoever is
> prepared himself to enter upon socialism on ethical grounds on the
> supposition that the provision of goods of a lower order for human
> beings under a system of common ownership of the means of
> production is diminished, or whoever is guided by ascetic ideals
> in his desire for socialism, will not allow himself to be
> influenced in his endeavors by what we have said."
> <http://www.mises.org/econcalc/CONCLUSN.asp>
But this isn't relevant to Marx's ethical premises. Instrumental ("economic") activity in an ideal community is and must be, on these premises, fully "rational." It's instrumental to the end in itself activity that defines "the true realm of freedom" and, since the "end" determines the "means" "with the rigidity of a law," it can only be "efficient" as a fully "rational" activity.
Because of the nature of the "end" - e.g. "the most beautiful music" - the means it provides must be of the highest order -e.g. the finest pianos.
The ideals embodied in this "end" are the opposite of "ascetic." In fact, as Keynes points out, the substitution of means for ends (of the "economic" for the "non-economic,", of "purposive" for end in itself activity, hides ascetisim - "sadistic puritanism."
Ted