Making a living...

[Lynx]

Allowable forms of income under capitalism: Wages, Profit, Rent, Interest
Allowable forms of income under socialism: Wages

Questions?

[Il Medico]

Wages? Maybe not.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
This take what you need and give what you can, idea would probably mean wages would be edged out by the social incentive to keep the society running as the reason for work.

[Nwoye]

it depends what you mean by socialism. post-scarcity communists will tell you that need should be the basis for distribution, while collectivists will tell you that people will be reimbursed according to their portion of the total goods produced, and market socialists will tell you that people should have equal (or corresponding to labor) ownership of sales revenue.

[Lynx]

Wages? Maybe not.

This take what you need and give what you can, idea would probably mean wages would be edged out by the social incentive to keep the society running as the reason for work.
Minimum requirement for wage income: employment
Minimum requirement for profit and rental income: property ownership
Minimum requirement for interest income: money

[RGacky3]

Allowable forms of income under socialism: Wages

Everyone in Communism would essencailly be self employed / in partnership with whomever they choose (free association). So really its a whole different situation.

[Lynx]

I shall replace the term 'wages' with 'work income' and change the minimum requirement for profit:

Allowable forms of income under capitalism: Work, Profit, Rent, Interest
Allowable forms of income under socialism: Work
Allowable forms of income under socialism (mutualist, associationist): Work, Profit

Minimum requirement for work income: employment
Minimum requirement for profit: property ownership, commodity production
Minimum requirement for rental income: property ownership
Minimum requirement for interest income: money

~
Hence the goal of socialist society will be full employment.
Self-employed workers and free associations would be earning work income, unless their income were derived from sales of a commodity.

[RGacky3]

Self-employed workers and free associations would be earning work income, unless their income were derived from sales of a commodity.

Theres no money, how could there be income?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Theres no money, how could there be income?

RGacky, were talking about socialism, meaning a society in transition between capitalism and communism, money as well as commodity production cannot simply be abolished outright, and in all likeliness will be used (and should be) during the "lower stages" of transition. In order to have full employment, you have to have some kind of income for workers, especially say if you seized state power from capitalists last week, for example. Here, Lynx is absolutely correct.

[RGacky3]

Ic, my bad. considering I'm an Anarchist, this probably is'nt my topic then, Apologies.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Ic, my bad. considering I'm an Anarchist, this probably is'nt my topic then, Apologies.
No problem, but it still applies to anarchism as well.

How would an anarchist society hope to achieve production and distribution based on need and ability by abolishing money in one fell swoop? Or am I misunderstanding how you envision the abolition of money?

[Lynx]

Theres no money, how could there be income?
In the higher phase of communism, the term gift economy is used. I'm uncertain as to how people's actions would be categorized, in the absence of measurable income (and spending). The term worker might be replaced with volunteer. You then 'volunteer your time' for others and for yourself. The terms productive and unproductive might be replaced with a single evaluative term, balance.

[RGacky3]

In the higher phase of communism, the term gift economy is used. I'm uncertain as to how people's actions would be categorized, in the absence of measurable income (and spending). The term worker might be replaced with volunteer. You then 'volunteer your time' for others and for yourself. The terms productive and unproductive might be replaced with a single evaluative term, balance.

In a way yes, in other words the only reason the classification "worker" exists, is because there is a distinction between "worker" and "boss" or "Capitalist" or "business man".

In a communist society, the classification of "worker" and even "work" would be somewhat meaningless, because "work" would really be just part of normal personal life.

Now work is something you do for a company in order to recieve a pay check so you can get on with your life (which probably also includes "work" your doing for your self and your family). Under communism all work, is essencially free, work your doing for yourself and your family, and the community (reason being is that others would be doing work for you too, based on what can and needs to be done).

So the whole situation is somewaht different, almost all economic studies and though is about profit, which is based on property and capitalism. How would economics apply to say a party where everyone brings what they can? Shared things, gardening, and so on, you can't really. When communism gets rid of the state and capitalism, those notions are impossible, consdiering everyone is free and has equal access.

[Lynx]

There would still be measurement done with regard to consumption and production. It's difficult to imagine a world where individuals are no longer judged by how they spend their time or their resources.

[RGacky3]

It's difficult to imagine a world where individuals are no longer judged by how they spend their time or their resources.

If theres was a need for that, I'm sure a community would be able to impliment that without any type of hiarchy and mutual agreements.

Let me give you an example, a party, where everyone brings booze to share (socialist party :P). Most of the time you don't need to keep track of who brought what and how much someone is drinking because generally speaking people tend to bring what they can, and don't drink more than they need/want too. So its not nessessary, now this example is in a Capitalist world, where alcohol is expensive and there might be people with many varying incomes and wealths in the party, in a Socialist world the conditions would be many times more condusive to sharing.

Now at a party where there is'nt enough booze, most of the time agreements can be made as to the consumption.

[krazy kaju]

Wages? Maybe not.

This take what you need and give what you can, idea would probably mean wages would be edged out by the social incentive to keep the society running as the reason for work.

The "social incentive to keep the society running as a reason for work?" Why would anyone work when they cannot keep the produce of their own work and instead just leach off of others?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

First of all, capitalism currently denies workers the right to keep the full produce of their work.

But to answer your question, it is true that people will not do unpleasant tasks in the absence of individual reward. Which is why communism can only be established once technology has advanced to the point where all unpleasant tasks can be done by machines, and the jobs left over for people are creative ones that can be enjoyed in and of themselves. We want a world where work is fun.

And we are very much aware that such a world cannot be created immediately. That's what the transitional stage known as socialism is necessary before communism can be implemented. In socialism, people will still receive individual rewards for their work.

[JammyDodger]

First of all, capitalism currently denies workers the right to keep the full produce of their work.

But to answer your question, it is true that people will not do unpleasant tasks in the absence of individual reward. Which is why communism can only be established once technology has advanced to the point where all unpleasant tasks can be done by machines, and the jobs left over for people are creative ones that can be enjoyed in and of themselves. We want a world where work is fun.

And we are very much aware that such a world cannot be created immediately. That's what the transitional stage known as socialism is necessary before communism can be implemented. In socialism, people will still receive individual rewards for their work.


A hefty portion of the worlds unpleaseant tasks can already be removed via current technology once we share it, another hefty slice is done for profits sake, as for the rest the burden of these unpleasant tasks can be spread.

certain things that are unpleasant will not be able to be replaced, man is a gifted machine, but we can atleast minimise these tasks and make sure they are not weighted on a few to spend all there lives doing but by many doing a share.

With modern production techniques and machinary and production capacity freed up from making crap, production will account for little of the man power to provide all our needs.

I think waiting for every single unpleasant task to be replaced by machines will see our grandkids old and grey.

I look forward to a world where work is fun, but a machine that can shear sheep on its own or butcher it well is star trek territory.

But I hope we see it anyway.:)

[RGacky3]

Why would anyone work when they cannot keep the produce of their own work and instead just leach off of others?

Because people would notice and its really degrading, also, do you really think anyone wants to live like that?


But to answer your question, it is true that people will not do unpleasant tasks in the absence of individual reward. Which is why communism can only be established once technology has advanced to the point where all unpleasant tasks can be done by machines, and the jobs left over for people are creative ones that can be enjoyed in and of themselves. We want a world where work is fun.

Thats rediculous, you don't think its possible for people to make agreements to share unpeasant tasks?

Also its not only about work being "fun" its about it being rewarding.