"to each according to need"

[ContrarianLemming]

More and more, in the last few weeks, I've been going further away from my Parecon-esque view that in a communist society we should operate "to each according to labour done/work done"

I originally believed, and still do in a sense, that (and I hate to use this cliche argument) jobs which require more skill like a doctor, should receive more luxeries then manual labour jobs.

But I must also face the idea that all labour is social labour, you don't do anything alone, nothing, a doctor is skilled, but they didn't make the tech they use and no job they do is done alone, it's all "communal labour" which brought me closer to the idea of a gift economy or market socialism (strangely enough, will I get restricted now?).

I do think that paying the same wages for everyone (by hour) is no good, otherwise, wont people only pick the easy jobs?

How am I suppost to reconcile this idea? I really don't buy into that post scarity "abudence of all goods" star trek stuff.

So on one hand I'm saying "more difficult labour deserves reward" on the other hand "no difficult labour is done alone, we all contribute, the doctor is nothing without the patient!"
Right now I'm thinking that people should be paid based on how much they enjoy there jobs, the least enjoyable jobs get most reward/wage, the most enjoyable get least reward/wages.

thought?

[Broletariat]

I wouldn't imagine that a Communist society would still have full-time manual labour positions, everyone doing a little bit of it would be the norm if we had to do it at all, but you said you don't buy into that so >_>

[ContrarianLemming]

I said I don't but into post scarity communism

[Broletariat]

Even without buying into post-scarcity Communism, you have to recognise a lot of people don't work manual labour jobs currently, if everybody were obligated to spend time on manual labour jobs and then pursue their "harder" jobs things would level off better.

[ContrarianLemming]

Even without buying into post-scarcity Communism, you have to recognise a lot of people don't work manual labour jobs currently, if everybody were obligated to spend time on manual labour jobs and then pursue their "harder" jobs things would level off better.

That would be balanced job complexes, right?

[Broletariat]

That would be balanced job complexes, right?

I've never encountered that term before to be frank, I'm only a few months into this whole madness :P

Assuming you take two people, one working an 8 hour a day manual labour job and one working an 8 hour a day mental job, and obligate them to work 4 hours each on either one I'd imagine it would level off for the most part. Is all I'm saying.

[ContrarianLemming]

I've never encountered that term before to be frank, I'm only a few months into this whole madness :P

Assuming you take two people, one working an 8 hour a day manual labour job and one working an 8 hour a day mental job, and obligate them to work 4 hours each on either one I'd imagine it would level off for the most part. Is all I'm saying.

Balanced job complexes is where yo equal your job time between working satisfying happy jobs and more stressful jobs, but I don't think that's what you meant.

right now I am most in agreement that the most satisfying jobs get the least pay
but I can imagine a whole pile of logistical prblems with that, first and foremost: not everyone, for example, thinks being a doctor is stressful or hard

I have no idea what to think! none of these ideas are perfect and I feel like I'm to focused on trying to find the perfect idea, when a revolution happens I think we will, to be frank, figure it out as we go along.

[Broletariat]

The idea of rewarding pay based on the least satisfying job seems incredibly flawed as "satisfying" is completely and utterly subjective.

I do mostly agree with the idea that we have to sort of "wait and see." But that's not to say we shouldn't debate before hand so as to have an idea of what we want. Can't be completely unprepared. The set-up of a post-revolutionary society will heavily depend upon how the set-up for that particular area was pre-revolutionarily too. It's easier to work with systems already in place than it is to institute completely new ones and all that.

[ContrarianLemming]

I do mostly agree with the idea that we have to sort of "wait and see."

And there we have it
right now I'm thinking that to each according to word done is unfair, but it's also pretty workable and in line with anarchism.

[Broletariat]

And there we have it
right now I'm thinking that to each according to word done is unfair, but it's also pretty workable and in line with anarchism.

I'd say it's entirely unworkable, and to try and actually reward someone based on how much they've contributed to society is literally impossible and utopian. You can't predict what positive or negative effects spring from your everyday actions that contribute to society because of the whole communal labour thing and all that good stuff.

[ContrarianLemming]

I'd say it's entirely unworkable, and to try and actually reward someone based on how much they've contributed to society is literally impossible and utopian. You can't predict what positive or negative effects spring from your everyday actions that contribute to society because of the whole communal labour thing and all that good stuff.

it's not "to each according to the positive things they've done for all" its according to work done, regardless of how useful that work it.

[Broletariat]

it's not "to each according to the positive things they've done for all" its according to work done, regardless of how useful that work it.
It takes a lot of work to set up a bank heist. I say we should only reward positive work if we're going to reward based on work at all.

[BAM]

The principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is only meant to apply to the higher phase of communist society. When capitalism is first abolished and we move into communism, remuneration will still correspond to effort, though it will be up to society there and then, I guess, to decide on the differentials.

I don't believe in all this post-scarcity stuff either. It seems quite clear to me that the levels of productivity and the division of labour will have to increase massively in order just to balance the level of social development across the world and that it would take quite a long time for the third world to catch up with the first.

[ContrarianLemming]

It seems to me that lot of those who adhere to "accordng to need" and dift economies simply assume communism is going to be post scarity

[BAM]

yes, I agree. There's always a lot of hand-waving or a simple assumption that we will have vastly improved technology, etc. And you often find that these people are the same ones who think that this can come without people putting in more effort than at present, but you can't have anything approaching "post-scarcity" without massive increases in productivity and a more complex division of labour.

[Ovi]

More and more, in the last few weeks, I've been going further away from my Parecon-esque view that in a communist society we should operate "to each according to labour done/work done"

I originally believed, and still do in a sense, that (and I hate to use this cliche argument) jobs which require more skill like a doctor, should receive more luxeries then manual labour jobs.

Why skill and not work done? Being paid by the amount of work done doesn't mean being paid by the amount of time worked, since some jobs are more intensive than others. You might expect a car driver to be able to work 6-8 hours a day but it would be foolish to believe a brains surgeon should work the same amount of time. If you could objectively say that a brain surgeon works 3 times as hard as a car driver, than he should receive 3 times as much. Not because his work is more important, more skilled, or more valuable, all jobs are equally important, but because he should be paid the same for the same amount of work done.

[ContrarianLemming]

Why skill and not work done? Being paid by the amount of work done doesn't mean being paid by the amount of time worked, since some jobs are more intensive than others. You might expect a car driver to be able to work 6-8 hours a day but it would be foolish to believe a brains surgeon should work the same amount of time. If you could objectively say that a brain surgeon works 3 times as hard as a car driver, than he should receive 3 times as much. Not because his work is more important, more skilled, or more valuable, all jobs are equally important, but because he should be paid the same for the same amount of work done.

I think the argument that all jobs are important is a tired one, it's often made when arguing for a gift economy, I don't buy it, some jobs are simply more important then others and we need to encourage people to want those jobs by giving them ore luxeries

[ContrarianLemming]

yes, I agree. There's always a lot of hand-waving or a simple assumption that we will have vastly improved technology, etc. And you often find that these people are the same ones who think that this can come without people putting in more effort than at present, but you can't have anything approaching "post-scarcity" without massive increases in productivity and a more complex division of labour.

Theres another knee jerk word a lot of fer leftists seem to not like "division of labour" as if this necessarily means class division, I find it very annoying

[Leonid Brozhnev]

This one plagues me quite a bit too, I'm not as naive to think that people will simply work harder jobs simply for the good of society in an early Communist system. Incentives need to be there, it's a clichéd argument I know, but it has some truth to it. People will not give up their 'What's in it for me' mentality easily, if at all... hard/skilled jobs need benefits, not necessarily higher wages, just benefits.

[Zanthorus]

Theres another knee jerk word a lot of fer leftists seem to not like "division of labour" as if this necessarily means class division, I find it very annoying

Division of labour might not automatically lead to class divisions but there are various aspects of the division of labour that lead to class divisions. The division of labour between mental and manual work is the most obvious one because it creates a techno-managerial class which is used to commanding others and dealing with complex mental tasks and a class of regular workers who are used to deferring tasks to others and doing what they're told. The mental/manual division was what led to the creation of ideologists like priests in the feudal world or modern day media commentators and liberal "intellectuals" who act to defend the status quo and can't be challenged because they're the only ones with access to information and time to do proper research.

The division of labour between agrarian and industrial production during the feudal era was also what led to the rise of a wealthy merchant/industrial class in the towns known as the burghers. Although you probably know them better by the french term which is commonly used as a perjorative around these parts - "bourgeoisie".

[BAM]

Division of labour might not automatically lead to class divisions but there are various aspects of the division of labour that lead to class divisions.

exactly. Just to clear this up, there is the social division of labour and the division of labour in manufacturing. When talking about a potential greater division of labour in a communist society, we are referring to this technical division, as opposed to social division.

The division of labour in manufacture is actually a form of co-operation and makes production more efficient, as each worker plays one small part in an overall process rather than the artisan or craftsman who sees through the whole process of making a commodity in his workshop. My point is that increases in productivity are going to have to lead to an increased technical division of labour within the labour process itself, if we are to be able to deliver the level of output we are going to need as a society.

The social division of labour refers to the restriction of people to particular roles based on their jobs. You're right that the danger here is of an emergent co-ordinator class. From what I know about it, the Parecon idea of having balanced job complexes seems like a sensible plan.

[ZeroNowhere]

From what I recall, doesn't the social division of labour refer to the division of labour on the societal level, such as private labour under capitalism, whereas the technical division of labour involves what you referred to as the 'social division of labour'?


Division of labour in society is brought about by the purchase and sale of the products of different branches of industry, while the connexion between the detail operations in a workshop, is due to the sale of the labour-power of several workmen to one capitalist, who applies it as combined labour-power. The division of labour in the workshop implies concentration of the means of production in the hands of one capitalist; the division of labour in society implies their dispersion among many independent producers of commodities. While within the workshop, the iron law of proportionality subjects definite numbers of workmen to definite functions, in the society outside the workshop, chance and caprice have full play in distributing the producers and their means of production among the various branches of industry.

[BAM]

From what I recall, doesn't the social division of labour refer to the division of labour on the societal level, such as private labour under capitalism, whereas the technical division of labour involves what you referred to as the 'social division of labour'?

Good question.

Just let me modify: The social division of labour refers to different branches of production, and this occurs in all societies. Thus labour is divided broadly into agriculture, industry and so on down into smaller units. So the social division in capitalist society is between different commodity producers.

The technical division is within the workplace itself that produces the commodity. The crucial difference is that within the technical division, the producers do not own what they produce and the capitalist buys this combined labour power as one.

I can see what you mean when I wrote "people get restricted to roles based on their jobs", that I was conflating social with technical, but I was thinking of roles in terms of different branches of industry rather than within the individual workplace, so that you are, say, a mine-worker, even though mine work involves all sorts of different tasks within it.

[Governor??]

I would like to see the image of the "competition for scarce resources" done away with. I consider it a LIE that engenders selfishness!! It creates all of this fighting over economy and goods that basically causes the economy to contract and production to be limited.

There ARE NO SCARCE RESOURCES in the larger economic view -- and competition for SCARCE RESOURCES is a false track.

Imagine unlimited power of production. That's the reality.

[Paul Cockshott]

Distribution according to need is not the same thing as unlimited free distribution. In the British
National Health Service, medical treatment is free at the time of need.6 But this free distribution only
works because there is some relatively objective assessment of need by doctors, combined with waiting
lists for treatments (plus an element of privatization). This is quite different from saying that free
distribution of clothes, for example, would be a case of ‘to each according to their need’. If consumer
goods in general were distributed free this would lead either to profligate waste, or alternatively to
military-style uniformity of consumption if waste were curtailed.
Marx does not talk about free distribution, he talks about ‘to each according to their need’. This is
more compatible with the model followed by social-democratic welfare states of making supplementary
payments to those with disabilities, to students, to large families etc. Payment according to need
presupposes some procedure for socially assessing need. In this, welfare-state capitalism prefigures
communism, but it does so in a monetary economy with wide income differentials. The gap between
the first and second phases of communism is now much less than in Marx’s day, when no welfare state
existed. The principle of distribution according to need has already been accepted for some sectors
of the economy in Canada and most European capitalist countries, and much of this would be carried
over into communism.