Is the concept of equal pay true to original Marxist theory?

[aaabatteries]

I can't seem to find this in Marx's writings, specifically the Communist Manifesto. The only two planks that seem to directly relate to an income are these:

1. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. (This is plank 5)
2. A heavy progressive tax. (This is plank 2)

However, 5 would simply mean a national bank. Nothing related to income.

Number 2 would merely have a highly progressive tax—it would still be able to make more money than other people by working hard, it seems.

Are positive incentives truly for or against Marxist theory, then?

And yes, this is for a school assignment, but a very free-form one. I chose this topic due to my newfound interest in Communist theory.

Also, if anything I have posted is non-factual, please understand that it most likely arises from a simple misunderstanding on my part from pure ignorance, ignorance that I am now trying to remedy.

One of my friends had this to say on the matter, is this true?

"No. In the socialist prelude to communism, workers will be paid in accordance with their contribution to society. Wages will be decided democratically by the people, rather than by a tiny minority of rich landlords, as in capitalism. Capital will have been abolished by the time communism develops, so there will be no "pay" then. Goods are in a surplus; people take according to their needs."

[GPDP]

The idea that communists support "equal pay" is nothing more than right-wing anti-communist propaganda designed to paint the revolutionary left as a sinister, totalitarian group scheming to impose strict material equality upon everyone in society. It is basically a strawman of our actual positions, which is then knocked down to paint communism as being against human nature, innovation, incentives to work hard, etc.

In reality, your friend is quite correct, at least in regards to the communist "stage." As for any "transitional" period leading up to that, well, you will get a varied response. I myself am not that fond of the "contribution" maxim, as anyone that is physically/genetically endowed from birth (a factor just about entirely out of our control) to perform better at a certain task may get rewarded quite a bit more than someone who was not so lucky, and I find that a tad unfair. Certainly a step above today's method of remuneration, which is based primarily on how much capital (be it social, cultural, or physical) you own, but we can do better. That is why I am a proponent of a "sacrifice" maxim, wherein one is rewarded according to the onerousness of one's labor, which would almost do away with luck-based factors.

[LOLseph Stalin]

"No. In the socialist prelude to communism, workers will be paid in accordance with their contribution to society. Wages will be decided democratically by the people, rather than by a tiny minority of rich landlords, as in capitalism. Capital will have been abolished by the time communism develops, so there will be no "pay" then. Goods are in a surplus; people take according to their needs."

Your friend is pretty much correct. Once we reach the Communist stage wages are abolished completely.

[bailey_187]

In socialism, no, everyone does not receive equal pay

"It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right.”---Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program

“the individual receives from society exactly what he gives to it.” - Marx

"an equal amount of products for an equal amount of labour." - Lenin

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

It is infact the most inportant theory because it completes the unification process.Communism isn't communism with out it

[ZeroNowhere]

On the ten planks, Engels made it quite clear that they were not a description of an end, but merely demands for the workers to fight for until they finally overthrew capitalism altogether (as even if they were all implemented, the system would still be capitalist). When coming to the topic of these reforms, he states that, "They are possible because the whole insurgent proletariat is behind them and maintains them by force of arms. They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won." So certainly, there was no proclamation of some peaceful 'proletarian administered capitalism', the purpose was the heightening of class struggle until it led to the overthrow of capitalism. It was meant as a means, and "not [possible] in any other way."


"No. In the socialist prelude to communism, workers will be paid in accordance with their contribution to society. Wages will be decided democratically by the people, rather than by a tiny minority of rich landlords, as in capitalism. Capital will have been abolished by the time communism develops, so there will be no "pay" then. Goods are in a surplus; people take according to their needs."
Well, not quite. Firstly, socialism, as used by Marx, Engels, and almost all other pre-Leninist socialists, is a synonym for 'communism', so there is no 'socialist prelude to communism'. What Marx differentiated between with labour credits was merely the higher and lower phases of socialism, the initial stage of socialism using a system of labour credits (link (http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf). link (http://deleonism.org/v.htm).), and the higher one presumably using one of 'free access'. Of course, basic necessities (appliances, food, water, electricity, etc) would probably be subject to free access either way, at least to a certain limit. So capitalism would be abolished in both stages. And certainly, without capitalism, you can't have wages, which are a social relation, and neither stage of socialism would have wages within it, for then it would not be socialism. Labour credits are not wages.
Certainly, there would not be 'equal wages'.

[robbo203]

Well, not quite. Firstly, socialism, as used by Marx, Engels, and almost all other pre-Leninist socialists, is a synonym for 'communism', so there is no 'socialist prelude to communism'. What Marx differentiated between with labour credits was merely the higher and lower phases of socialism, the initial stage of socialism using a system of labour credits (link (http://slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf). link (http://deleonism.org/v.htm).), and the higher one presumably using one of 'free access'. Of course, basic necessities (appliances, food, water, electricity, etc) would probably be subject to free access either way, at least to a certain limit. So capitalism would be abolished in both stages. And certainly, without capitalism, you can't have wages, which are a social relation, and neither stage of socialism would have wages within it, for then it would not be socialism. Labour credits are not wages.
Certainly, there would not be 'equal wages'.


Spot on. Equal pay is a concept that has nothing to do with marxism. Marxism is about getting rid of "pay" - the abolition of the wages system. In point of fact, Marx argued that equal pay was a theoretical and practical impossiblity anyway - see the extended argument on this in the Crituque of the Gotha Programme. It is in any case at variance with the labour theory of value concerning the value content of labour power which necessarily varies according th the skill of the workers