Wages in a Socialist Society.

[KarlMarx1989]

I have a specific question:

How would wages be given for work in a Socialist Society?

I have heard that everyone makes the same wage. However, I have also heard that people make slightly different wages by what level they work on but not by different professions.

I want someone to set my mind straight about this because I am now confused.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There are essentially two different proposals for setting wages in a socialist society. You could call them "democratic wages" and "labour wages", respectively. Neither of them involves equal wages all the time, but they both involve almost-equal wages for most professions most of the time.

1. Democratic wages. The idea is that wage levels are decided by some democratic authority - workers' councils at the factory level, local or regional councils, or perhaps some higher body of elected economic planners. This authority can set wages however it wants, subject only to the rule that the sum of all wages must equal the sum of all prices for consumer goods in the economy. Since the wage-setting authority is democratic, we can expect that there will be a high degree of equality of wages. Anyone who wants a higher wage than other people must convince the majority that he deserves that higher wage - which is no easy task. The advantage of the democratic-wage method is that wages can be changed in any way the community wishes, and thus they can be used as a tool of social policy. The disadvantage is that wages may be set arbitrarily, resulting in inefficiencies.

2. Labour wages. The value of money is tied to labour-hours (for example, $100 = the value that is produced by 2 workers in 5 hours = 10 labour-hours). Your wages are always equal to the amount of hours you work. So, using the above example, you would get paid $100 for every 10 hours of work. This method ensures that no one has the power to set wages. It also has egalitarian consequences, since everyone who works the same number of hours per week would get paid the same wage (but you can earn more by working longer hours). Like the previous method, it would also ensure a high degree of income equality. The advantage of the labour-wage method is that it eliminates the possibility of "human error" in the setting of wages and guarantees a rational wage scale. The disadvantage is that it deprives the people of an important tool of control over their own economic life.

In practice, of course, a socialist society may use a combination of the two methods.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

By the way, the method used in all Soviet-style societies was a variant of the democratic-wages method... except, you know, without the democratic part. The planning authority could set wages any way it wished; they were not tied to labour.

[Durruti's Ghost]

Wages are a relic of the capitalist class system that should be replaced by a communist system of distribution as soon as possible--preferably immediately. Failing that, though, they would be decided democratically by workers' councils using labor-time as a guide.

[ZeroNowhere]

They wouldn't. Labour credits, perhaps. Wages, no.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

They wouldn't. Labour credits, perhaps. Wages, no.
Yes, technically they would not be wages, because socialism is not based on wage labour, but I assumed the OP simply used the term "wages" as shorthand for "workers' income".

[sanpal]

Yes, technically they would not be wages, because socialism is not based on wage labour, but I assumed the OP simply used the term "wages" as shorthand for "workers' income".

Communism is not based on wage labour but not socialism which is.

Proletarian socialism can use wage labour in its market sector of economy and non-wage labour i.e. based on labor time notes in its communist sector economy. As combination of both.

[Kayser_Soso]

Communism is not based on wage labour but not socialism which is.

Proletarian socialism can use wage labour in its market sector of economy and non-wage labour i.e. based on labor time notes in its communist sector economy. As combination of both.

Socialism can also eliminate wage labor, switching over to labor time calculation as the others suggested. However, there must also be surplus wealth produced for the state's future investment, upgrades, etc. This solution can be solved by direct democracy and similar schemes over the use of the surplus product. People can decide at various levels if they want to work more hours to get more stuff(for lack of a better term), or work less and not get that new workers' club in the factory, for example.

The beauty of labor time calculation, is that while allocating funds is difficult(since you are dealing with tens of millions of units of currency), most people can easily understand the concept of everyone working one more hour a day for X amount of months/years/etc.

[Искра]

What exactly is socialist society?
Is it socialist state or communism?

In socialist state wages exist like in capitalism. Bosses are replaced by directors who Party puts in their position and they have bigger wage than average worker.

In communism wages don't exists.

[Искра]

Wages are a relic of the capitalist class system that should be replaced by a communist system of distribution as soon as possible--preferably immediately. Failing that, though, they would be decided democratically by workers' councils using labor-time as a guide.
Why calculating? How will you calculate labour time of philosopher? That's perverted...

[Kayser_Soso]

What exactly is socialist society?
Is it socialist state or communism?

In socialist state wages exist like in capitalism. Bosses are replaced by directors who Party puts in their position and they have bigger wage than average worker.

In communism wages don't exists.


You're describing a particular incarnation of socialism, assuming that we would just do the same thing that failed again.

Wages need not exist under socialism. Marx actually referred to socialism as the "lower form of Communism". He never gave much detail as to how far from Communism it would be; only the basic idea of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work." Obviously this allows for labor time payment as well, which he discussed in his Critique of the Gotha programme.

Of course this can't be done immediately, and there will be many kinks to work out, but unlike the transition to Communism this need not take a whole epoch at all.

[Kayser_Soso]

Why calculating? How will you calculate labour time of philosopher? That's perverted...


You must calculate. As for the philosopher- I doubt there would be anyone who is only a philosopher. He would do some kind of productive work, and just as a price can be put on what he uses and what he produces, so can labor time values be attributed to those things.

You should check out the book Toward the New Socialism by W.P. Cockshott, and the many articles he has written on the subject of labor-time calculation.

[Искра]

You must calculate. As for the philosopher- I doubt there would be anyone who is only a philosopher. He would do some kind of productive work, and just as a price can be put on what he uses and what he produces, so can labor time values be attributed to those things.
I'm against calculating labour time in communism. (I'm not referring to socialist state since I'm an anarchist so you know the sorry :))
I guess that you'll all say uh, an anarchist but I don't give a fuck.

As, I said, we can't calculate all work. How will you calculate brain work? I gave simple example with philosopher. He/she is doing something, he's thinking and writing. You may find that stupid and not useful, but that's work. So, how would you calculate his/her labour time, if he/she has brainstorm attacks? Philosopher can't think from 8 am to 1 pm and then stop doing that, he/she thinks all the time. Same goes for every brain work like: inventing something, making a theory etc. Half of scientist work is in his/her head. So you will label this as something which is not work because it dosen't produce material objects?

Also idea of calculating promotes divisions and competitions. You'll say that material work is better than brain, because it produces something. So, you'll make another hierarchy.

I'm still for: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

[sanpal]

Socialism can also eliminate wage labor, switching over to labor time calculation as the others suggested. However, there must also be surplus wealth produced for the state's future investment, upgrades, etc. This solution can be solved by direct democracy and similar schemes over the use of the surplus product. People can decide at various levels if they want to work more hours to get more stuff(for lack of a better term), or work less and not get that new workers' club in the factory, for example.

Don't argue!




The beauty of labor time calculation, is that while allocating funds is difficult(since you are dealing with tens of millions of units of currency), most people can easily understand the concept of everyone working one more hour a day for X amount of months/years/etc.

This is typical mistake of many socialists having stalinist view; currency has no deal with labour time calculation in nonmarket communist sector of economy in the proletarian socialist state. It has a place only in the state capitalist and private sector of economy in the same proletarian socialist state.

[Kayser_Soso]

I'm against calculating labour time in communism. (I'm not referring to socialist state since I'm an anarchist so you know the sorry :))
I guess that you'll all say uh, an anarchist but I don't give a fuck.

As, I said, we can't calculate all work. How will you calculate brain work? I gave simple example with philosopher. He/she is doing something, he's thinking and writing. You may find that stupid and not useful, but that's work. So, how would you calculate his/her labour time, if he/she has brainstorm attacks? Philosopher can't think from 8 am to 1 pm and then stop doing that, he/she thinks all the time. Same goes for every brain work like: inventing something, making a theory etc. Half of scientist work is in his/her head. So you will label this as something which is not work because it dosen't produce material objects?

Also idea of calculating promotes divisions and competitions. You'll say that material work is better than brain, because it produces something. So, you'll make another hierarchy.

I'm still for: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.


Great, we'll just let philosophers(wonderful to know you support an intelligentsia class) take whatever they think their work is worth.

[Искра]

Great, we'll just let philosophers(wonderful to know you support an intelligentsia class) take whatever they think their work is worth.
Why are philosophers intelligentsia class?
So, when you talk about working class you imagine only male factory workers from beginning of 20th century?
You know, working class is not like on Soviet poster.

[Kayser_Soso]

This is typical mistake of many socialists having stalinist view; currency has no deal with labour time calculation in nonmarket communist sector of economy in the proletarian socialist state. It has a place only in the state capitalist and private sector of economy in the same proletarian socialist state.

I am not talking about currency, I am talking about labour time calculation. I said it is easier for the average person to make economic decisions based on labour hours as opposed to currency amounts.

If you ask the average person, how much can $1 million buy, they probably couldn't tell you. I couldn't tell you exactly how much that would buy or what you could use it for. But anyone can understand the concept of- this will cost X amount of labour-hours, for X amount of time.

[Kayser_Soso]

Why are philosophers intelligentsia class?
So, when you talk about working class you imagine only male factory workers from beginning of 20th century?
You know, working class is not like on Soviet poster.


Everyone in a society should do some kind of productive work. Even if they are intellectuals, they should be teaching, writing, etc. All of this work has value and can be calculated. If you allow the existence of jobs that involve little labor yet can still get a decent wage, people will gravitate towards those jobs. That is why in the late Soviet Union, people didn't want to be farmers or ordinary workers- everyone wanted to be some kind of manager.

Now I know this wouldn't be a problem in most anarchist societies because they are free and the workers run all the factories so they never do anything that goes against the stated principles of anarchist socialism, but I still have to play devil's advocate on this matter.

[Искра]

Everyone in a society should do some kind of productive work. Even if they are intellectuals, they should be teaching, writing, etc. All of this work has value and can be calculated. If you allow the existence of jobs that involve little labor yet can still get a decent wage, people will gravitate towards those jobs. That is why in the late Soviet Union, people didn't want to be farmers or ordinary workers- everyone wanted to be some kind of manager.

Now I know this wouldn't be a problem in most anarchist societies because they are free and the workers run all the factories so they never do anything that goes against the stated principles of anarchist socialism, but I still have to play devil's advocate on this matter.
So according to you productive work = work.
So, scientist is working only when he is writing some plans etc. and when he's sitting in his chair developing his theory or invention he's what? Lazy bastard?
Also, how can some intellectual write something if he dosen't think?
What I'm trying to prove? I'm trying to prove that thinking is still part of work! It's maybe the biggest part, because developing of idea is the most important thing. If you don't think about it you'll never produce it. So, how will you calculate this work?
Or should we all stop with thinking work (brain work) and just recycle past?
Or intellectuals should work in factory and when they came back home they should write? Dosen't that sound like capitalism? Produce first and then if you have time you have your freedom.

And about Soviet union and decent wage, this is ridiculous. You have to be in favour of Party to be a manger. Same goes for Yugoslavia. My grandfather was manager of mall, ice-cream factory and football club. Was he qualified for that? I don't know, but I know that he was in favour of Party.

And btw. what's role of intelligentsia class?

[Kayser_Soso]

So according to you productive work = work.
So, scientist is working only when he is writing some plans etc. and when he's sitting in his chair developing his theory or invention he's what? Lazy bastard?
Also, how can some intellectual write something if he dosen't think?
What I'm trying to prove? I'm trying to prove that thinking is still part of work! It's maybe the biggest part, because developing of idea is the most important thing. If you don't think about it you'll never produce it. So, how will you calculate this work?
Or should we all stop with thinking work (brain work) and just recycle past?
Or intellectuals should work in factory and when they came back home they should write? Dosen't that sound like capitalism? Produce first and then if you have time you have your freedom.




So we should basically pay people something of value for "thinking"? How do we know they were really thinking about their work, and maybe not just having some sexual fantasy?

[Искра]

So we should basically pay people something of value for "thinking"? How do we know they were really thinking about their work, and maybe not just having some sexual fantasy?
Well that's what I'm talking about you CAN'T CALCULATE every work!

People must have access to goods without money or calculating the labour hours.

[CELMX]

So we should basically pay people something of value for "thinking"? How do we know they were really thinking about their work, and maybe not just having some sexual fantasy?

If people are forced to produce something, and that is the only way to acquire money/income, then philosophers, writers, etc. would just be producing shit material so they can get wages.
Wouldn't it we better if you just let them be, and not force them to create a certain amount? Then, they can actually produce quality material.

And, why would someone be a writer/philosopher/whatever if all they were going to do was doze off? Wouldn't they be doing something they actually liked, instead? People aren't inherently lazy and won't just sit around doing absolutely nothing.

[Искра]

If people are forced to produce something, and that is the only way to acquire money/income, then philosophers, writers, etc. would just be producing shit material so they can get wages.
Wouldn't it we better if you just let them be, and not force them to create a certain amount? Then, they can actually produce quality material.

And, why would someone be a writer/philosopher/whatever if all they were going to do was doze off? Wouldn't they be doing something they actually liked, instead? People aren't inherently lazy and won't just sit around doing absolutely nothing.
I agree with you 100%.

Forcing someone to work is what made Soviet Union and similar state capitalist regimes alienating.

[chegitz guevara]

Read Marx's, Critique of the Gotha Programme and also Lenin's State and Revolution.

[Pogue]

I think they'd be decided, as Kwisatz said, through an anarcho-collectivist model, i.e. when workplaces are run democratically and things are accounted for in this manner, until a 'communist' society is acheived.

[ZeroNowhere]

Wages need not exist under socialism. Marx actually referred to socialism as the "lower form of Communism".
Which lacked the social relation which we call wages, yes. And was a form of communist society, for that matter.


How will you calculate labour time of philosopherI will ignore a philosopher and hope they go away.


What I'm trying to prove? I'm trying to prove that thinking is still part of work! It's maybe the biggest part, because developing of idea is the most important thing. If you don't think about it you'll never produce it. So, how will you calculate this work?Perhaps scientists and such could be hired for certain projects according to the needs of industries and the public, and given a set amount of labour credits for it on, say, a monthly basis, depending on how important it is decided to be, and presumably chucked out and replaced if they're not doing anything. Since most of the decisions regarding this will be based around industries rather than the everyone, it shouldn't be too much work. For that matter, scientists (perhaps of different types) could have representatives at an All-Industrial Congress, and see where it goes from there. Writers could presumably get donations, as well as any income they make elsewhere.


Forcing someone to work is what made Soviet Union and similar state capitalist regimes alienating.Not really, that was capitalism.


People aren't inherently lazy and won't just sit around doing absolutely nothing.Indeed, we will sit around doing fun stuff. Not all necessary or wanted work (in the sense of people wanting the product) is fun. You can claim that we could make it fun in a week or so, but that's just wild-ass speculation, and not much of a basis for proposing a system. And really, work is never going to beat reading Dunsany, for example. I don't mind somebody getting basic necessities (shelter, clothing, food, water, electricity, appliances, etc), at least up to a certain amount, without having to do anything. So I'm not sure to what degree people are being 'forced' to do so.


People must have access to goods without money or calculating the labour hours.Yes, because more freeloaders is exactly what we need.


Also, how can some intellectual write something if he dosen't think?Quite easily, it would seem. See the Frankfurt School, for example.


Why are philosophers intelligentsia class?
So, when you talk about working class you imagine only male factory workers from beginning of 20th century?
You know, working class is not like on Soviet poster.To be fair, you do have a point here.


If you ask the average person, how much can $1 million buy, they probably couldn't tell you. I couldn't tell you exactly how much that would buy or what you could use it for. But anyone can understand the concept of- this will cost X amount of labour-hours, for X amount of time.To be honest, I'm not sure how this argument works. Surely people can understand, 'This will cost X dollars'. I don't see why people would know any better what, say, 50 hours could buy you, for example.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

As Pogue said, something similar to the theories of Anarcho-collectivism. Just as we cannot launch straight into Communist society following revolution we cannot simply abolish money in one stroke. So until then wages or other credits will be used until we can have a society based on "each according to their ability, each according to their need".

[Ovi]

Perhaps scientists and such could be hired for certain projects according to the needs of industries and the public, and given a set amount of labour credits for it on, say, a monthly basis, depending on how important it is decided to be, and presumably chucked out and replaced if they're not doing anything. Since most of the decisions regarding this will be based around industries rather than the everyone, it shouldn't be too much work. For that matter, scientists (perhaps of different types) could have representatives at an All-Industrial Congress, and see where it goes from there.

Research is not something where you can ask for results. You work 3 months on researching high energy particles and come up with a better theory on X. It doesn't work that way. The problem is that in many cases intellectual work can't ensure results.


Writers could presumably get donations, as well as any income they make elsewhere.

In that case many scientists, writers, artists and the like will be forced to do some "productive" work, despite the fact that doing what they're good at will help society much more than anything else.

[robbo203]

Wages need not exist under socialism. Marx actually referred to socialism as the "lower form of Communism". He never gave much detail as to how far from Communism it would be; only the basic idea of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work." .

Incorrect. Marx did not refer to socialism as the "lower form of communism". That was Lenin. Marx and Engels regarded socialism and communism as the same thing - synonyms

There will be no wages in socialism. Generalised wage labour is what lies at the very heart of capitalism. The existence of generalised wage labour means you have a capitalist society not socialism

[Durruti's Ghost]

Just as we cannot launch straight into Communist society following revolution we cannot simply abolish money in one stroke.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Conquest of Bread provides a compelling argument for the immediate establishment of communism following the revolution. Whether this is actually possible or not isn't something we can know until we try it.

[robbo203]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Conquest of Bread provides a compelling argument for the immediate establishment of communism following the revolution. Whether this is actually possible or not isn't something we can know until we try it.


I tend to agree with this. The point is that well prior to the establishment of a communist society, people will already begin to be engaged in activities that transcend the commodity relationship. The belief that we can do without money, without prostituting ourselves to the capitalist class for a wage of salary, will already be "in the air" so to speak. The entire social climate will be radically modified and transformed by the growth of a genuine communist movement preparatory to the establishment of communism itself. The need for a transition period no longer exists. We have the technology to make communism a reality now. In fact we have long had this technology. All we lack is the mass understanding and desire to establish communism

[Kayser_Soso]

I agree with you 100%.

Forcing someone to work is what made Soviet Union and similar state capitalist regimes alienating.
'
Life itself forces us to work.

[Jethro Tull]

'
Life itself forces us to work.

Indeed. What makes the work oppressive or exploitative is whether or not the worker is alienated from the work. Communists, while recognizing that life requires work, support the abolition of all forms of alienated labor, which would include all wage-labor.


Everyone in a society should do some kind of productive work.

Agreed, however, the work will not be alienating. It will be a part of daily life to be enjoyed, like eating, smoking, sleeping or listening to music.


All of this work has value and can be calculated.

But why does it need to be, unless we still live in a society where labor is commodified?

In other words, why prolonged "socialist" capitalism? Why not communism?


wonderful to know you support an intelligentsia class

Wonderful to know you use shitty, intellectually dishonest strawmen. (what does the act of philosophizing in a communist society have to do with the intellectual-class in capitalism?)

[Kayser_Soso]

Indeed. What makes the work oppressive or exploitative is whether or not the worker is alienated from the work. Communists, while recognizing that life requires work, support the abolition of all forms of alienated labor, which would include all wage-labor.



Agreed, however, the work will not be alienating. It will be a part of daily life to be enjoyed, like eating, smoking, sleeping or listening to music.

Again, you are making assumptions about how it will be. Few of us are used to doing non-alienating work; how would we even know? We derive a lot of the culture we enjoy now from alienation- it is reflected in the music we like, certain forms of art, dance, etc. It may be difficult to adjust to a world where we aren't locked in mortal competition with everybody, where we are treated with respect. Obviously we CAN adjust, it's just that we cannot predict how and how long it will take.

I am well aware of alienation, the problems it causes, and the general way in which we may eliminate it, but the problem is we can't just throw out assumptions so easily like this. You have to remember, we are talking about revolution, and the inevitable counter-revolution. So when you are speaking to workers- you can't just say: We'll abolish capitalism, and then wage labor, and we'll all get paid for the labor we put in...etc. No, you have to preface that with: "Those of us who survive the revolution will...."



But why does it need to be, unless we still live in a society where labor is commodified?

In other words, why prolonged "socialist" capitalism? Why not communism?

Partially because resources and space are finite. Calculating is not the same as commodifying.

It is not us who decide whether socialism is prolonged or not. It is a matter of historical conditions, time, place, people, reaction, etc. As far as Communism goes- there are indeed throughout the world "communist" societies, in the sense that there are literally communes and they live in a state of what can only be called "communism". There is one in Vermont that has been operating for at least 30 years, and people are paid based on labor hours, plus a small extra wage used for spending money in town. Apparently it works- but it works because everyone there wants it to work. They make a personal choice to live that way. As long as people who want to live that way- not caring about wages and preferring the company of a close-knit community, it is definitely possible to create such communes.

Now, when you speak of abolishing capitalism, doing this on a mass scale, then that is another story entirely. Capitalism isn't going without a fight, so you are basically advocating that workers take part in an armed insurgency, which even if it is successful will mean that they suffer far more casulties than the other side for many years, perhaps longer. That and torture, a reduction of standard of living even for those not directly involved, betrayal, police states, etc. If they manage to survive all that, they'll have a whole host of other terrible by-products of modern war, such as black marketeering, human trafficking, mass prostitution, foreign intervention, carpet bombing, sabotage, insurgencies against the new regime, more betrayal, assassination, embargoes, the destruction of basic infrastructure and perhaps the biggest, yet seemingly benign threat- brain drain, where the richer capitalist countries easily buy off those with useful skills.

So that's what you're offering the worker when you speak of abolishing capitalism, whether you are an anarchist, a left Communist, Trot, or whatever. Anything less than that isn't going to be the abolishment of capitalism because they simply aren't going to let you get away with such a thing, and they have all the resources in the world to prevent you from doing so.

Now that you know what revolution entails- are you prepared to tell workers to go through all that, so that they can immediately start working for no wages?





Wonderful to know you use shitty, intellectually dishonest strawmen. (what does the act of philosophizing in a communist society have to do with the intellectual-class in capitalism?)

If we are going to pay people to philosophize- then how, and on what basis? So if anyone just sits around and spits out some philosophy, we should give him some kind of material credit? Or will we need some kind of board, some kind of institution, to determine what philosophy is, how it is properly produced, and then officially certify people as philosophers? Seems a little bureaucratic to me.


In summation, my main idea here is not that ideas like direct democracy or the abolishment of wage labor are impossible- on the contrary, I believe that both are essential to successful socialism, and thankfully modern technology plus a century's worth of experience makes those and other things far more achievable- but only after the revolution, and cleaning up the inevitable mess that makes. Because of that- I cannot in good conscious make predictions about what we will be able to do in the future, or when or how. That is out of our hands, and it is out of yours.

Also, don't expect people to act in their best interests just because they suddenly have a choice. There are tens of thousands of Americans who would benefit directly from universal healthcare- yet are enraged and fearful of just that, simply because a fucking RADIO DJ told them it's going to kill Grandma.

[Jethro Tull]

Again, you are making assumptions about how it will be. Few of us are used to doing non-alienating work; how would we even know? We derive a lot of the culture we enjoy now from alienation- it is reflected in the music we like, certain forms of art, dance, etc. It may be difficult to adjust to a world where we aren't locked in mortal competition with everybody, where we are treated with respect. Obviously we CAN adjust, it's just that we cannot predict how and how long it will take.

Yes, but the point is: is state-socialism a transition to communism, or is it the prolonging of capitalism as an alternative to communism?


You have to remember, we are talking about revolution, and the inevitable counter-revolution.Does the wage system somehow protect against counter-revolution? Or is the reinforcement of wage labor in-of-itself the counter-revolution?


We'll abolish [...] wage labor, and we'll all get paid for the labor we put in...etc.

Why is anyone getting paid for their labor if we've already abolished wage labor?


you have to preface that with: "Those of us who survive the revolution will...."The responsibility of facing the inevitability of death and hardship is an important philosophical subject regardless of the necessity of revolution, but what does that have to do with whether or not the continuation of wage labor will be necessary to create communism?


Partially because resources and space are finite. Calculating is not the same as commodifying. Isn't calculating the amount of labor someone does, so they can be materially compensated, basically the same thing as commodifying labor? That's not to say all forms of calculation are commodification.


It is not us who decide whether socialism is prolonged or not. It is a matter of historical conditions, time, place, people, reaction, etc.We create the historical conditions.


As far as Communism goes- there are indeed throughout the world "communist" societies, in the sense that there are literally communes and they live in a state of what can only be called "communism".Indeed.


There is one in Vermont that has been operating for at least 30 years, and people are paid based on labor hours, plus a small extra wage used for spending money in town.This isn't communism, it's cooperative capitalism.


Now, when you speak of abolishing capitalism, doing this on a mass scale, then that is another story entirely. Capitalism isn't going without a fight, so you are basically advocating that workers take part in an armed insurgencyAgreed.


suffer far more casulties than the other side for many years, perhaps longer.Yes, this is a problem. However, more suffering would occur if capitalism is allowed to continue, which is basically the "solution" proposed by socialists.


torture, a reduction of standard of living even for those not directly involved, betrayal, police states, etc.You're describing the conditions of life under capitalism, my friend.


black marketeering, human trafficking, mass prostitutionAll of that would be violently abolished.


foreign interventionThis is "socialism in one country" talk. Yes, the capitalists will intervene, but it won't be "foreign" intervention, in the nation-state protectionist sense, as the capitalists have no nation, and neither does the commune.


carpet bombingPart of creating communism will be dismantling the capitalists' capacity for physical power.


sabotageSabotage emerges under the specific conditions of capitalist labor, as a reaction against the oppressive alienation of capitalist toil. Sabotage is unlikely to occur in a communist situation. If someone is disrupting the productive goals of the commune, they'll be expelled. Sabotage is frequently listed as one of the daunting obstacles of creating a new socialist society, and the USSR is given as a historical example. The key to this historical puzzle is that the USSR never abolished capitalism. Capitalist labor continued, and the workers reacted out of resentment through sabotage.


insurgencies against the new regimeIs the point to make a new regime? To me the point is to abolish all existing regimes and replace them with communes.


embargoesA commune needs to be able to sustain itself without trading in the capitalist economy, in order to be an effective agent of anti-capitalism.


the destruction of basic infrastructureThis isn't much of a problem if you have a self-sustaining commune. We should decrease our reliance upon the capitalist-produced mass-transit, mass-communication, electrical, and irrigation infrastructures, anyway, as part of the organic transition towards communism.


perhaps the biggest, yet seemingly benign threat- brain drain, where the richer capitalist countries easily buy off those with useful skills. This is only a relevant concern if we're discussing competing capitalist states. It doesn't matter if a member of a revolutionary commune is recruited for employment by a capitalist state. Actually, that would be a positive development for the commune because it means the commune has more material resources. If a comrade moves, they can continue the communist struggle elsewhere. If the allure of capitalist life is so great that the autonomous commune is being depleted, than the commune is either too weak to offer a standard of living greater than that of capitalism, or the members of the commune are not committed to communism.


Now that you know what revolution entails- are you prepared to tell workers to go through all that, so that they can immediately start working for no wages? That's what we're offering them regardless of the question of wages. The real question is, would you want to "go through all that", and have it end up being for something other than the abolition of capitalism?


If we are going to pay people to philosophize- then how, and on what basis? So if anyone just sits around and spits out some philosophy, we should give him some kind of material credit? Or will we need some kind of board, some kind of institution, to determine what philosophy is, how it is properly produced, and then officially certify people as philosophers? Seems a little bureaucratic to me.Our point exactly.


modern technologyHow does "modern technology" help create communism? I like technology but am opposed to the social conditions created by capitalist industry.


only after the revolution, and cleaning up the inevitable mess that makes.Saying we don't need "direct democracy" (a.k.a. communism) until "after the revolution" is a form of defeatism. We need "direct democracy" (not democracy at all, but communism) because it is the most effective model of social organization for creating an anti-capitalist revolution.


Also, don't expect people to act in their best interests just because they suddenly have a choice. There are tens of thousands of Americans who would benefit directly from universal healthcare- yet are enraged and fearful of just that, simply because a fucking RADIO DJ told them it's going to kill Grandma.I hear you. Hence why we need to create tightly-knit cadres to function as a worker's vanguard, as opposed to broad, open-membership mass-parties which don't accomplish much, other than the creation of new additional layers of bureaucracy.

[chegitz guevara]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. The Conquest of Bread provides a compelling argument for the immediate establishment of communism following the revolution. Whether this is actually possible or not isn't something we can know until we try it.

The Soviets tried it. It didn't work out so well. You can say, well, they were in a massive civil war that killed 12 million people, but who's to say that our revolution won't be similarly embroiled.

[Kayser_Soso]

Yes, but the point is: is state-socialism a transition to communism, or is it the prolonging of capitalism as an alternative to communism?

Preserving elements of capitalism(though I don't know who is arguing that right now) is not the same as preserving capitalism as a system. Elements of capitalism existed under other modes of production, and yet did not lead to capitalism. Elements of feudalism exist in some capitalist countries, but one does not say they are preserving feudalism, or that they will revert back to it.



Does the wage system somehow protect against counter-revolution? Or is the reinforcement of wage labor in-of-itself the counter-revolution?

It's not a matter of wages or no wages, it's a matter of keeping people willing to contribute to the development, preservation, and advancement of socialism rather than aiding the capitalists who want to regain the market or property they just lost. You DO realize that there are people out there who don't want you to succeed, right?




Why is anyone getting paid for their labor if we've already abolished wage labor?

You are "paid" in the sense that your labor is good for an equal amount of labor put it. "Pay" does not automatically mean wages.



The responsibility of facing the inevitability of death and hardship is an important philosophical subject regardless of the necessity of revolution, but what does that have to do with whether or not the continuation of wage labor will be necessary to create communism?

Do you seriously need me to answer this question? Are you aware that there are some people in this world who have a very big stake in keeping the system as it is- and have thus far been doing a pretty good job of doing just that? Do you think they are going to allow you to practice your schemes in private, with no intervention? If you find the USSR distasteful, imagine what it would have been like had the capitalists of the world stood back and said, "My, what an intriguing experiment, let's just see where this is going?"



Isn't calculating the amount of labor someone does, so they can be materially compensated, basically the same thing as commodifying labor? That's not to say all forms of calculation are commodification.

We are producing use values, and consuming them. If you can think of a better way to allocate things, bearing in mind the current historical epoch and human attitudes, plus the inevitable counter-revolution, I'd love to hear it.



We create the historical conditions.

No so consciously as you might wish.



Yes, this is a problem. However, more suffering would occur if capitalism is allowed to continue, which is basically the "solution" proposed by socialists.

Not from the perspective of many people, including those living in otherwise third world conditions. Believe me, if they thought otherwise, we'd see a hell of a lot more insurgency around the world.



You're describing the conditions of life under capitalism, my friend.

No, I am describing what happens during war and insurgency.



All of that would be violently abolished.

Wow, just snap your fingers and make it happen! Sorry pal, but these are side-effects of war, and a prolonged war is what you are going to have on your hands. Assuming you're victorious, you do violently take all these people out, you don't suspect that you might have crossed paths with some people within your movement? You don't think people will turn black marketeers into innocent martyrs, and then use their deaths to tar your "totalitarian system"? Forget it- let me ask this: Do you EVER foresee the possibility of any problems? Any possibility your best laid plans might be upset somehow?



This is "socialism in one country" talk. Yes, the capitalists will intervene, but it won't be "foreign" intervention, in the nation-state protectionist sense, as the capitalists have no nation, and neither does the commune.

Again, you are predicting the future. It doesn't matter whether you consider them foreign or not. What they represent is an assload of bombs ready to blow your worker-owned factory sky high.



Part of creating communism will be dismantling the capitalists' capacity for physical power.

How? How are you going to discipline your people to do so? And all the time you spend doing this, you aren't implementing the kind of direct-to-Communism society you want.



Sabotage emerges under the specific conditions of capitalist labor, as a reaction against the oppressive alienation of capitalist toil. Sabotage is unlikely to occur in a communist situation.

Really? How can you predict that?



If someone is disrupting the productive goals of the commune, they'll be expelled.

What if a few people in the commune have a bone to pick with one person for frivolous reasons, and frame him? What if capitalist nations surrounding your area pay agents to wreck things? Again, do you ever foresee any kind of problem with your utopian dream?



Sabotage is frequently listed as one of the daunting obstacles of creating a new socialist society, and the USSR is given as a historical example. The key to this historical puzzle is that the USSR never abolished capitalism. Capitalist labor continued, and the workers reacted out of resentment through sabotage.

Actually there were plenty of people who, for ideological reasons, engaged in sabotage. It had nothing to do with alienation- these people were ideologically opposed to the ideals of socialism- practice matters little to such people.

If people don't like what you stand for, they are going to attack you over it, alienation be damned.



Is the point to make a new regime? To me the point is to abolish all existing regimes and replace them with communes.

How? Because everyone will just think the way you want them to?



A commune needs to be able to sustain itself without trading in the capitalist economy, in order to be an effective agent of anti-capitalism.

Ok...then you have a problem here. Can you see which? This will be fun.



This isn't much of a problem if you have a self-sustaining commune. We should decrease our reliance upon the capitalist-produced mass-transit, mass-communication, electrical, and irrigation infrastructures, anyway, as part of the organic transition towards communism.

Capitalist solution: cordon off the commune- drop daisy cutter. Build Walmart.



This is only a relevant concern if we're discussing competing capitalist states.

It's a relevant concern if we are dealing with the real world and not anarchist hypotheticals.



It doesn't matter if a member of a revolutionary commune is recruited for employment by a capitalist state. Actually, that would be a positive development for the commune because it means the commune has more material resources. If a comrade moves, they can continue the communist struggle elsewhere. If the allure of capitalist life is so great that the autonomous commune is being depleted, than the commune is either too weak to offer a standard of living greater than that of capitalism, or the members of the commune are not committed to communism.

Uh..didn't you just say the communist commune should be sustainable without trading with the capitalists?



That's what we're offering them regardless of the question of wages. The real question is, would you want to "go through all that", and have it end up being for something other than the abolition of capitalism?

What you are offering is a utopian dream. As far as most people are concerned these days, capitalism is putting food in their mouths, if only a little. I suggest you get out and travel a bit, and tell workers about your plans. Get ready for a shock.



How does "modern technology" help create communism? I like technology but am opposed to the social conditions created by capitalist industry.

It creates the ability to judge how much labor goes into producing necessary things, and calculating the most efficient way to do so- and ultimately leads to a far more egalitarian way of wealth distribution. After people become accustomed to this kind of non-competitive social system, and scarcity of necessary products is no longer a problem, true Communist distribution can begin(according to need), and the system can be used for inventory/distribution data. That and automation means more free time for workers.



Saying we don't need "direct democracy" (a.k.a. communism) until "after the revolution" is a form of defeatism. We need "direct democracy" (not democracy at all, but communism) because it is the most effective model of social organization for creating an anti-capitalist revolution.

Oh it is? Got any proof of that?



I hear you. Hence why we need to create tightly-knit cadres to function as a worker's vanguard, as opposed to broad, open-membership mass-parties which don't accomplish much, other than the creation of new additional layers of bureaucracy.

So you at least support the idea of a vanguard- and seem to understand what is meant by that. Well I'm glad we are communicating.

Like I said, it's not what you are looking for that is different from my goals- we all have the same end goals. I'm just saying that we can't accurately predict things and we need to base ourselves in the real world. Between you and me I can see the inherent validity of these ideas- but the average worker who doesn't concern theirself with such political/philosophical issues will hear it as utopian dreaming- because that's precisely what it seems like.

[Jethro Tull]

Preserving elements of capitalism(though I don't know who is arguing that right now) is not the same as preserving capitalism as a system. Elements of capitalism existed under other modes of production, and yet did not lead to capitalism. Elements of feudalism exist in some capitalist countries, but one does not say they are preserving feudalism, or that they will revert back to it.

Demonstrating that capitalism has elements of feudalism or vise versa does not demonstrate that communism will have elements of either capitalism or feudalism.


It's not a matter of wages or no wages

Yes it is, it matters a lot, hence why we're both taking the time to discuss it at length.


it's a matter of keeping people willing to contribute to the development, preservation, and advancement of socialism rather than aiding the capitalists who want to regain the market or property they just lost.

From my perspective, socialism as you describe it is a form of capitalism. Just because a certain group of capitalists have lost a certain market or property does not mean advances towards communism have been made. For example when right-wing populist insurrections succeed, it can have disastrous effects for certain sectors of the bourgeoisie.

I don't feel the need to contribute to the development, preservation or advancement of a socialist state any more than I would a liberal democratic or fascist state. What I want to contribute to is the development, preservation, and advancement of capitalism which means liberating the individual from the bondage of wage-slavery.


You DO realize that there are people out there who don't want you to succeed, right?

Of course. The question is, what is success?


You are "paid" in the sense that your labor is good for an equal amount of labor put it.

I don't understand. Could you rephrase that?


Do you seriously need me to answer this question? Are you aware that there are some people in this world who have a very big stake in keeping the system as it is- and have thus far been doing a pretty good job of doing just that? Do you think they are going to allow you to practice your schemes in private, with no intervention?

Yes, yes, and no. Again, what does this have to do with whether a socialist wage-state helps bring about communism? I'm not denying that communist world-revolution is a daunting goal.


If you find the USSR distasteful, imagine what it would have been like had the capitalists of the world stood back and said, "My, what an intriguing experiment, let's just see where this is going?"

In order to accept the answer that "distasteful" aspects of the USSR were a consequence of necessary compromises made to defend against external capitalist threat, we have to accept the premise that a centralized, hierarchically-controlled parliamentary bureaucracy, complete with wage labor, police, prisons, etc., is the most tactically effective mode of organization for a revolutionary party to adopt. I do not accept this premise.

The reason the communist party in Russia adopted that mode of organization is because it is the most tactically effective way to overthrow an existing regime and replace it with your own.


We are producing use values, and consuming them. If you can think of a better way to allocate things, bearing in mind the current historical epoch and human attitudes, plus the inevitable counter-revolution, I'd love to hear it.

What you're suggesting is - Joe chops wood for eight hours, and is thus given eight workhour credits that he can spend on commodities he wants and needs. Presumably if Joe does no work, he gains no credits and thus starves.

What I'm suggesting is - Joe likes chopping wood, so he does it. Others consider his wood-chopping useful, so they share the fruit of their labor with him. If Joe decides he would rather sit around on the couch being fed by the work of others, he will be kicked out of the commune for being a slothful parasitic bastard. He may or may not starve, but the commune's hands are clean.

If a mode of existence cannot effectively respond to counter-revolution than it is not worth considering. If communism was as weak and defenseless as you M-Ls say it is, I would have no interest in it.


No so consciously as you might wish.

Other things determine the historical conditions besides humans. Animals, plants, minerals, celestial bodies, etc. But "historical conditions" is not an external force that paralyzes us and holds us prisoner - it's the sum total of our actions.


Not from the perspective of many people, including those living in otherwise third world conditions. Believe me, if they thought otherwise, we'd see a hell of a lot more insurgency around the world.

You're making the fallacious assumption that workers always act in their own self-interest.


No, I am describing what happens during war and insurgency.

Capitalism doesn't exist without daily war and insurgency.


Wow, just snap your fingers and make it happen!

Nope.


Sorry pal, but these are side-effects of war

Prostitution is not a side-effect of war, it is a side-effect of capitalism. Plenty of non-capitalist societies wage wars, where's the prostitution? Same with any other example you gave


Assuming you're victorious, you do violently take all these people out, you don't suspect that you might have crossed paths with some people within your movement?

If they're black marketeers, pimps, etc. then they're not part of the communist movement.


You don't think people will turn black marketeers into innocent martyrs, and then use their deaths to tar your "totalitarian system"?

Oh well, I would have no reason to expect otherwise, you know what Mao Tsetung says about when your enemies attack you...


Do you EVER foresee the possibility of any problems?

Of course, I just see the sollution differently than you do.


Any possibility your best laid plans might be upset somehow?

I'm not creating "best laid plans", merely pointing out what I percieve as the flaws in the "best laid plan" of Marxist-Leninists and other socialists.


Again, you are predicting the future.

So? Making an educated guess about what will happen in the future is not allowed?


It doesn't matter whether you consider them foreign or not. What they represent is an assload of bombs ready to blow your worker-owned factory sky high.

The experience of the Russian and Spanish anarcho-syndicalists teaches us that "worker-owned factories" don't need anyone else to bomb them sky-high, they'll run themselves into the ground...

Regardless, my point isn't that the bourgeoisie won't attack us. My point is that conflicts between rival bourgeois states have less to do with the conflicts between communists and capitalism than some would have us believe.


How?

Capitalist machines of mass-warfare can be dismantled.


And all the time you spend doing this, you aren't implementing the kind of direct-to-Communism society you want.

Dismantling capitalist weapons of mass-warfare is an important part of implimenting the kind of direct-to-communism society I want.


Really? How can you predict that?

In a communist society, if someone is dissatisfied with their labor they will leave.


What if a few people in the commune have a bone to pick with one person for frivolous reasons, and frame him?

These are problems that emerge out of the hubris of human interaction, so it's a necessary question to grapple with. There's no reason to believe, from my perspective, that "socialist police state" is the answer, however.

A communist society revolves around a certain degree of trust and intimacy between participants in the society which will make legal intervention in such conflicts less complicated than it is under bureaucracy. There would also be nothing forcing people to interact with those they dislike on a daily basis.


What if capitalist nations surrounding your area pay agents to wreck things?

This is a problem regardless, is it not? The socialist solution is to stick the capitalist agents in jail. The "direct-to-communist" solution is to try them and exile or kill them.


Again, do you ever foresee any kind of problem with your utopian dream?

"Utopia" means "no place". I don't have utopian dreams, I have practical plans. And yes, there will be many problems along the way, as nothing goes exactly according to plan.


Actually there were plenty of people who, for ideological reasons, engaged in sabotage. It had nothing to do with alienation- these people were ideologically opposed to the ideals of socialism

And their ideological opposition to the socialist regime they lived under had nothing to do with their experiences of alienation?


practice matters little to such people.

Huh, what do you mean?


If people don't like what you stand for, they are going to attack you over it

Of course, especially if what you stand for is more factory work.


How? Because everyone will just think the way you want them to?

No, actually, realistically the vast majority will oppose communism.


Ok...then you have a problem here.

No ice cream in June?


Capitalist solution: cordon off the commune- drop daisy cutter. Build Walmart.

Are Marxist-Leninists magically immune to daisy cutters?


It's a relevant concern if we are dealing with the real world and not anarchist hypotheticals.

This whole conversation has been mostly comprised of stupid hypotheticals on both parts, so I wouldn't go taking the high-horse right about now.

By "the real world", you mean "the world where the capitalist economy is allowed to operate". Fortunately, reality is not capitalist. The whole point is to take a stand against capitalism.


Uh..didn't you just say the communist commune should be sustainable without trading with the capitalists?

Even once the communists achieve self-sustainability, they can still obtain external funds. Would would be the advantage for these hypothetical communists to abstain from shop-lifting, seeking employment, etc. out of moral purity?


What you are offering is a utopian dream.

Marxist-Leninism is a utopian dream. It's one of the biggest utopian dreams of all. The utopian dreamers of Marxist-Leninism have dreamt up a utopia where capitalism can be abolished without the abolition of capitalism.


As far as most people are concerned these days, capitalism is putting food in their mouths, if only a little.

Exactly. Growing food and setting up meal programs is the first step.


I suggest you get out and travel a bit

Why? I like where I live.


and tell workers about your plans. Get ready for a shock.

I live in the U.S. South. It would probably be more of a shock if they found out I was a M-L.


It creates the ability to judge how much labor goes into producing necessary things

How so?


calculating the most efficient way to do so

Modern modes of production has made many things less efficient, not more.


and ultimately leads to a far more egalitarian way of wealth distribution.

It hasn't so far.


After people become accustomed to this kind of non-competitive social system

We don't need everyone on board to start building communism.


and scarcity of necessary products is no longer a problem

This will never happen. Scarcity, like work, is part of life.


the system can be used for inventory/distribution data.

Why would this be necessary?


That and automation means more free time for workers.

Quality of work is more important than quantity of work. I'd rather work outside for eight hours, than inside a factory for four hours, especially considering I'm not going to get maimed by malfunctioning factory equipment.


Oh it is? Got any proof of that?

Fluidity, versatility, etc.


So you at least support the idea of a vanguard- and seem to understand what is meant by that. Well I'm glad we are communicating.

Do you mean to say that you're glad I agree with you? Don't worry, my vanguard is purely Blanquist/Bakuninist. :thumbup1:


Like I said, it's not what you are looking for that is different from my goals- we all have the same end goals.

Practically speaking, this means little if your methods don't produce your goals.


I'm just saying that we can't accurately predict things

Many things we cannot accurately predict. We can predict what happens under socialism, by studying the socialist states that have existed thus far.


and we need to base ourselves in the real world.

And in the real world socialism has yet to create communism.


Between you and me I can see the inherent validity of these ideas- but the average worker who doesn't concern theirself with such political/philosophical issues will hear it as utopian dreaming- because that's precisely what it seems like.

Again I don't consider my ideas to be utopian, I consider them to be practical. I am opposed to Utopianism on basic ethical principle.

[robbo203]

The Soviets tried it. It didn't work out so well. You can say, well, they were in a massive civil war that killed 12 million people, but who's to say that our revolution won't be similarly embroiled.


The Soviets didnt try to immediately establish communism. Lenin was pretty clear about it. He wanted state capitalism and berated those who opposed this. You might say that state capitalism was a step en route to communism - I would strongly disagree - but in that sense communism (aka socialism) was just something that was paid lip service to in the same way as the Second International paid lip service to it. For the Social Democratic (reformist) parties of Western Europe as for the so called Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the goal of a moneyless wageless stateless society faded like the cheshire cats grin. Never once was it seriously attempted

[sanpal]

What I'm suggesting is - Joe likes chopping wood, so he does it. Others consider his wood-chopping useful, so they share the fruit of their labor with him. If Joe decides he would rather sit around on the couch being fed by the work of others, he will be kicked out of the commune for being a slothful parasitic bastard. He may or may not starve, but the commune's hands are clean.

*****

In a communist society, if someone is dissatisfied with their labor they will leave.


Fully agreed. But ... Where he/she will be kicked to? Where they will leave to? Hey you are in one step to recognizing the two independent economic sectors within one proletarian State including the state capitalist sector + private sector (petty-bourgeoisie, individuals, etc.) practicing capitalist mode of production and communist sector practicing communist mode of production. So you will avoid a necessity in organizing of system of Gulags. So do this step!;)

[sanpal]

The Soviets didnt try to immediately establish communism. Lenin was pretty clear about it. He wanted state capitalism and berated those who opposed this. You might say that state capitalism was a step en route to communism - I would strongly disagree - but in that sense communism (aka socialism) was just something that was paid lip service to in the same way as the Second International paid lip service to it. For the Social Democratic (reformist) parties of Western Europe as for the so called Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), the goal of a moneyless wageless stateless society faded like the cheshire cats grin. Never once was it seriously attempted

Disagreed. Lenin tried to immediately establish communism and hoped on the spreading of the revolution in the developed States but he got only war communism and barter in economy. Then as practical man who learn on his own errors he came to the decision to turn to NEP and then to come to the next step - creation of communism (a step back and then two steps forward).
What was after it - it is known: Stalin 'closed' NEP and established "duhringism" aka was constructing 'communism' on the currency base, abusing the currency to be real money.

[ckaihatsu]

Why calculating? How will you calculate labour time of philosopher? That's perverted...




Perhaps scientists and such could be hired for certain projects according to the needs of industries and the public, and given a set amount of labour credits for it on, say, a monthly basis, depending on how important it is decided to be, and presumably chucked out and replaced if they're not doing anything. Since most of the decisions regarding this will be based around industries rather than the everyone, it shouldn't be too much work. For that matter, scientists (perhaps of different types) could have representatives at an All-Industrial Congress, and see where it goes from there.


Yeah, labor is either [1] manufacturing-oriented (physical)("blue-collar"), [2] service-oriented (mental)("white-collar"), or [3] domestic / life-sustaining (emotional)("pink-collar").

In *all* cases it should be fitted to a production run or to a specific project -- that's all it takes. Everything else is political.








Also, how can some intellectual write something if he dosen't think?


Quite easily, it would seem. See the Frankfurt School, for example.


* Hilarious * -- !!!!!!!!








All of this work has value and can be calculated.

But why does it need to be, unless we still live in a society where labor is commodified?

In other words, why prolonged "socialist" capitalism? Why not communism?


There *does* need to be *some* formalism in any communist system that seeks to replace the function of capital. This is because there should be flexibility and universality so that the economy is not *constrained* in any kind of way.

While the overall economy could be driven by popular, liberated demand -- particularly for basic human needs -- the question of *labor* in a truly communist economy has been surprisingly *unaddressed*. This is my own, recent contribution:





Currently production requires [1] labor, and [2] capital, right? Without the abstracted, bullshit capital-market-pricing valuation at play we would have to have a *political economy* that *collectively, consciously* assumes mass control and planning over society's productive capacities, right?

But this *political* aspect doesn't speak to the *labor* component in a post-capitalist political economy -- sure no one could be blackmailed into work roles against their basic human living needs, but how would the potential, willing labor *supply* be treated by the *larger*, *overarching* political society -- the "demand" -- ?

This is where *past work completed*, quantified into labor credits, would confer a kind of *seniority* or *labor social status* in organizing the (numerically smaller) supply of labor to potentially meet the (numerically larger) population's requests ("demand") for production runs.


The material proceeds would become the resources of the collective, common population. In terms of actual possession and consumption, *that* would all be *pre-planned*, right? It would have had to go through a mass political decision-making policy process in order to even be *initiated* in the first place -- so everything is according to political will, set quantities, schedules, and logistics.

The workers who work on any given production run do *not necessarily* have to be the *consumers* of the resulting products -- they could even be *traveling* / *itinerant* laborers who are not *from* the locality -- *this* is another good reason for introducing a labor-hours credits system, so that a locality has the *flexibility* of finding suitable labor without being *tied down* to geographical constraints, or a labor workforce's *personal* interests and *personal* voluntarism.


Chris



--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- My superficiality is only skin-deep --

[chegitz guevara]

Disagreed. Lenin tried immediately establish communism and hoped on the spreading of the revolution in the developed States but he got only war communism and barter in economy. Then as practical man who learn on his own errors he came to the decision to turn to NEP and then to come to the next step - creation of communism (a step back and then two steps forward).
What was after it - it is known: Stalin 'closed' NEP and established "duhringism" aka was constructing 'communism' on the currency base, abusing the currency to be real money.

You are both wrong. The policy known as "war communism" was forced on the Soviets by the necessities of the civil war. Lenin was a Kautskyist, and as such, thought along the lines of orthodox Second International thinking, which was that the transformation from capitalism to socialism was not something that would be done quickly and recklessly, but carefully and deliberately, the the worker class would need to learn how to manage its affairs before it could take control of the whole society.

Unfortunately, they were forced to nationalize much of the economy quickly and bring it under state control because of the need to defeat the Whites and imperialists. Although it enabled them to do so, it was an absolute disaster in every other way.

[sanpal]

Lenin was a Kautskyist,

What? Renegade Lenin was Kautskyist?


... and as such, thought along the lines of orthodox Second International thinking,
so much that he initiated the Third (communist) International?