In true communism, does everyone get paid the same?

[Dimitri Molotov]

i have heard this is a myth, and i am bombarded with questions like this all day:

how come a doctor is paid the same as a janitor?

if they are not, how are people's wages determined?

i would like someone to explain in a simple but thorough explanation how people in a true communism would be paid.

[ContrarianLemming]

This is a pretty common question, and, put simply: no, people wont be paid at all, there would be no money at all.

[Durruti's Ghost]

i have heard this is a myth, and i am bombarded with questions like this all day:

how come a doctor is paid the same as a janitor?

if they are not, how are people's wages determined?

i would like someone to explain in a simple but thorough explanation how people in a true communism would be paid.

There are no wages in "true" communism. Everyone takes what they need/want from a common pool of products; "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". If you still have some sort of labor-credit system, you either have socialism or a "lower stage" of communism (depending on who you ask).

[Dimitri Molotov]

could you explain how trade could work then? sorry i dont quite understand. would there be money? or like non-reusable credits? would we just barter with goods? like ill give you 4 chickens for a donkey?

[Dimitri Molotov]

wait, so basically there wouldnt be money, everyone just makes what they can, throws it in a pot in the middle, and you take only what you need?

[ContrarianLemming]

could you explain how trade could work then? sorry i dont quite understand. would there be money? or like non-reusable credits? would we just barter with goods? like ill give you 4 chickens for a donkey?

First, theres plenty people on the forum who completely knee jerk when they hear the word "trade" and shout "CAPITALISM!!" and that's bullshit, trade is fine, or rather, mutual aid. Trade would work in whatever way is most efficiant. There wouldn't be money in "to each according to need" but that's only if it's post scarity (abundence of goods)

There's also the idea that in stateless communism we could still use non reusable credits/labour notes, because we haven't reached post scarity yet, in which case it's "to each according to work done/deed"

[ContrarianLemming]

wait, so basically there wouldnt be money, everyone just makes what they can, throws it in a pot in the middle, and you take only what you need?

Assuming it's post scarity communism

[Dimitri Molotov]

thanks that explained a lot to me. :)

[Durruti's Ghost]

wait, so basically there wouldnt be money, everyone just makes what they can, throws it in a pot in the middle, and you take only what you need?

Only in the fullest development of communism. People differ on how long it would take to get to that point; up to that point, some sort of labor-credits would likely be used to deal with the free-rider problem.

[Dimitri Molotov]

what is a forklift anarchist? i noticed it under your name and i was curious.

[ContrarianLemming]

what is a forklift anarchist? i noticed it under your name and i was curious.

Hehe, it's a running joke.

edit: http://www.revleft.com/vb/forklifts-useful-large-t133741/index.html

[Chimurenga.]

what is a forklift anarchist?

A waste of forklifts. :cool:

[ContrarianLemming]

A waste of forklifts. :cool:

Sir! When the revolution comes you shall be the first to be run over!

[leftace53]

what is a forklift anarchist? i noticed it under your name and i was curious.

This is why revleft is win.

I've thought of this question a lot too, and my solution was the everything in a pot situation, but like people said this is feasible only in a post scarcity world.
What would happen in a scarce setting though?

[ContrarianLemming]

What would happen in a scarce setting though?

To each according to work done.

[Durruti's Ghost]

This is why revleft is win.

I've thought of this question a lot too, and my solution was the everything in a pot situation, but like people said this is feasible only in a post scarcity world.
What would happen in a scarce setting though?

Everyone gets a certain number of labor credits per hour worked, which they can then use to "buy" products from the common store.

[FSL]

Everyone gets a certain number of labor credits per hour worked, which they can then use to "buy" products from the common store.

And, at least for Marxists, how much you would receive would also depend on the nature of your labor, its difficulty, hazards involved and how good you're at it.

[Chimurenga.]

Sir! When the revolution comes you shall be the first to be run over!


:D

[AK]

First, theres plenty people on the forum who completely knee jerk when they hear the word "trade" and shout "CAPITALISM!!" and that's bullshit, trade is fine, or rather, mutual aid. Trade would work in whatever way is most efficiant. There wouldn't be money in "to each according to need" but that's only if it's post scarity (abundence of goods)

There's also the idea that in stateless communism we could still use non reusable credits/labour notes, because we haven't reached post scarity yet, in which case it's "to each according to work done/deed"
This. It also needs to be noted that getting paid in labour credits is just another form of wage labour.

A waste of forklifts. :cool:
:lol:

[Crvena-Zastava]

Everyone gets a certain number of labor credits per hour worked, which they can then use to "buy" products from the common store.

Excuse me for being observant, but wouldn't that eventually lead to the "Credits" being used as money these days?

[thälmann]

in real and developed communism, there will be no money or work credits. everyone take part in production in according to his ability, and takes what he needs...if it is not like this, it is not communism in a marxist way...

[Bombay]

Would it be possible to take more than you need? How would it be controlled people wouldn't just too much food, clothes electronic devises ect.? I know a person is able to eat a certain amount of food but what is a person goes to the "store" (or whatever is the place where you get your stuff from) and takes 25 different cell phones and 5 SUV's? How many vehicles you'd be allowed to own?

[ContrarianLemming]

Would it be possible to take more than you need? How would it be controlled people wouldn't just too much food, clothes electronic devises ect.? I know a person is able to eat a certain amount of food but what is a person goes to the "store" (or whatever is the place where you get your stuff from) and takes 25 different cell phones and 5 SUV's? How many vehicles you'd be allowed to own?

Make a new thread for this.

[AK]

Excuse me for being observant, but wouldn't that eventually lead to the "Credits" being used as money these days?
Yes, and that's what I pointed out in the previous post.

It also needs to be noted that getting paid in labour credits is just another form of wage labour.
This is highlighted by Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread:

It is the same with the wages system; for after having proclaimed the abolition of private property, and the possession in common of all means of production, how can they uphold the wages system in any form? It is, nevertheless, what collectivists are doing when they recommend labour-cheques.

[autonomous bomb thrower]

In the lower stage of communism how is the inequality of wages balanced when say person A can work more productivly and make more money than person B who works less productivly. Although this seems to be remedied by training. In that case what if person A just loved to work and aquired so many labor-cheques he didn't know what to do with them. Would that not put a gap in the wages of workers?

[Across The Street]

Crvena-Zastava:
"Excuse me for being observant, but wouldn't that eventually lead to the "Credits" being used as money these days?"

Like an underground sort of trade-system? For instance you give the weedman a week or two worth of wage credits for a lb of ganja? I can see that happening, but then again why wouldn't the community stores stock ganja post-revolution anyway?


a.b.t. :
"In the lower stage of communism how is the inequality of wages balanced when say person A can work more productivly and make more money than person B who works less productivly. Although this seems to be remedied by training. In that case what if person A just loved to work and aquired so many labor-cheques he didn't know what to do with them. Would that not put a gap in the wages of workers?"

Taking into account that person B may work less productively due to a physical or mental ailment, they may not be able to ever reach the productivity of person A. I think until people start to work for work's sake, and every type of wage system is abolished, there will be a gap, or an inequality amongst the population. It's definitely a gradual process that won't be accomplished overnight, as I'm sure the thought of a money-less world hasn't occurred to very many people, or we'd probably have radically different methods and ideas about what social interaction is. Or it has occurred to nearly everybody and yet this is the best we've come up with. A collective "fuck it" if you will
I'm not sure how this inequality could be alleviated though, someone else can probably help us out here.

[revolution inaction]

There wouldn't be money in "to each according to need" but that's only if it's post scarity (abundence of goods)

why? i don't see any reason why the demand for something being greater than supply would require money to deal with distribution, rationing would work fine and would be more fair.



There's also the idea that in stateless communism we could still use non reusable credits/labour notes, because we haven't reached post scarity yet, in which case it's "to each according to work done/deed"

if this is the case then it would not be communism at all.

[Zanthorus]

I think some comrades here seem to forget that "communism" is not defined by a social-reformist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Blanc) slogan which appears once in Marx's entire output and in a letter not meant for publication at that (Note that I don't claim that Marx defines communism. However he clearly is an important communist thinker and therefore it is significant if the phrase doesn't take pride of place in his work. It shows at least that there are some communists who disregard the "free-access" sloganeering).


There are no wages in "true" communism. Everyone takes what they need/want from a common pool of products; "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". If you still have some sort of labor-credit system, you either have socialism or a "lower stage" of communism (depending on who you ask).

The "lower stage" of communism is still a form of "true" communism since it is based on communal labour.


It also needs to be noted that getting paid in labour credits is just another form of wage labour.

Well when Marx at least objected to the "equality of wages" slogan and advocated the slogan "abolition of the wages system" he made it clear that by wages he meant the amount of money payed to the worker by a capitalist. Obviously we can all see why that kind of "wage system" and that kind of "wage-labour is objectionable. The question is - other than moralising the slogans of social-reformists or endulging in unwarranted speculation about the level of technological advance achievable in a communist society what justification do you have for doing away with systems of rationing out the total social product?


Excuse me for being observant, but wouldn't that eventually lead to the "Credits" being used as money these days?

What in particular is wrong with "money" as such? The problem is "money" which is based on exchange in fragmented civil society which transforms itself into capital and stands as an alien force above the humans whose activity created it. In a society based on associated labour, "money" would not be a problem.


This is highlighted by Kropotkin in The Conquest of Bread:

Either Kropotkin is confusing the two senses of "wages system" here (i.e confusing money payed to the worker by a capitalist with general systems of allocating resources) or he's making unbacked statements.

[robbo203]

Well when Marx at least objected to the "equality of wages" slogan and advocated the slogan "abolition of the wages system" he made it clear that by wages he meant the amount of money payed to the worker by a capitalist. Obviously we can all see why that kind of "wage system" and that kind of "wage-labour is objectionable. The question is - other than moralising the slogans of social-reformists or endulging in unwarranted speculation about the level of technological advance achievable in a communist society what justification do you have for doing away with systems of rationing out the total social product?.

I dont think it is unwarranted speculation. In fact, quite the opposite. If you are going to do away with rationing and institute free access which is clearly what is implied in Marx's higher phase of communism then the "level of technological advance achievable in a communist society" is clearly relevant. Marx and Engels incidentally certainly indulged in such speculation in considering how close capitalism had moved to making communism technically possible. See here for Buicks article on the "Myth of the Transitional Society" http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/Myth_Transitional_Society.pdf


I would add that it is not just technology that has a bearing on the level of output but economic organisation as well. All forms of rationing draw resoruces away from productive output because they involve opportunity costs. The surpreme example of this is capitalism in which wealth is rationed via the price mechanism. The abolition of capitalism and all its socially useless occupations like banks pay departments, insurance firms etc etc will at least double the amount of resources and human labour power for socially useful direction. In Marx's lower phase of communusm, while of course there wont be any institutions associated with capitalist accounting, there will still neverthless be an array of insiitutions to manage the monitoring of labour inputs and the distribution of labour vouchers and so on. That in itself will be a pretty mammoth undertaking notwithstanding the power of modern computing and it will also draw resources away form socially useful production though nothing like on the scale of capitalism.

Non-rationing (or free access) is actually the most efficient and streamlined socio-economic arrangement available to us from that point of view and this is what critics of free access tend to overlook. There is a lot more to this idea of free access than meets the eye and for me it is essentially the form in which a gift economy based on generalised reciprocity can truly come into its own. So free access not only makes for more efficient production and enhanced output, it is about the quality of relationships between people in a communist society



What in particular is wrong with "money" as such? The problem is "money" which is based on exchange in fragmented civil society which transforms itself into capital and stands as an alien force above the humans whose activity created it. In a society based on associated labour, "money" would not be a problem..

Well youve kind of answered you own question here. Labour vouchers would not be money but there is the concern that they could begin to circulate and become money as opposed to "money". Another reason why I am highly skeptical about the whole labour voucher scheme. If you want to ration goods there are easier and more effective ways of doing it than this. Freely associated labour does not need the carrot of remuneration to work properly




Either Kropotkin is confusing the two senses of "wages system" here (i.e confusing money payed to the worker by a capitalist with general systems of allocating resources) or he's making unbacked statements.

A general system of allocating resources is not to be equated with a wage system in your "other" sense. Rationing is not a form of "allocating resources" which relates to the sphere of production. Rationing in the sense that you are talking about relates to accessing the means of living - goods and services - unless you are actually talking about rationing factors inputs which is quite another matter

[Zanthorus]

I dont think it is unwarranted speculation. In fact, quite the opposite. If you are going to do away with rationing and institute free access which is clearly what is implied in Marx's higher phase of communism then the "level of technological advance achievable in a communist society" is clearly relevant. Marx and Engels incidentally certainly indulged in such speculation in considering how close capitalism had moved to making communism technically possible. See here for Buicks article on the "Myth of the Transitional Society" http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/Myth_Transitional_Society.pdf

No matter how high the level of productive output is it will never be enough to satisfy every need of everyone on the planet and even if it could it would cause immense ecological damage.


Non-rationing (or free access) is actually the most efficient and streamlined socio-economic arrangement available to us from that point of view and this is what critics of free access tend to overlook. There is a lot more to this idea of free access than meets the eye and for me it is essentially the form in which a gift economy based on generalised reciprocity can truly come into its own. So free access not only makes for more efficient production and enhanced output, it is about the quality of relationships between people in a communist society.

First of all, although there may be opportunity costs involved in labour-time accounting these have to be weighed up against the costs of a free for all (Which would no doubt be massive).

Second of all how exactly is the common ownership of the means of production compatible with "a gift economy based on generalised reciprocity"? "Gift" economy implies autonomous producers whose productive activities are disconnected with each other. On the other hand if production was based on common ownership of the means of production then everyone would be part of the same productive unit working according to a common plan and the idea of a "gift" economy would become pure nonsense.


If you want to ration goods there are easier and more effective ways of doing it than this.

Such as?


unless you are actually talking about rationing factors inputs which is quite another matter

I understand labour-time accounting to apply to both the consumption spheres and the production spheres although the former is based on individuals own plans while the latter is organised by society at large.

[robbo203]

No matter how high the level of productive output is it will never be enough to satisfy every need of everyone on the planet and even if it could it would cause immense ecological damage. .

Are you claiming (along with the bourgeois economists) that our demands are insatiable? Isnt having a diverse and sustainable envrionment also a "need"? But even assuming you are correct and we are driven by insatiable demands, is not true that these demands are subject diminishing marginal returns So we might not have everything we (allegedly)want - like a plasma TV in every room in the house - but will happily sette for just one in the whole house. In other words there comes a point when it is no big deal when dont have absolutely everthing we could possibly want. "Enough" can quite often be enough




First of all, although there may be opportunity costs involved in labour-time accounting these have to be weighed up against the costs of a free for all (Which would no doubt be massive)..

What are these and how can they possibly exceed the opportunity costs of a social arrangement that involves the close monitoring of everyone's labour and the the distribution of labour vouchers as a form of remuneration? In a free access economy you simply dont need to do this. That necessarily means less resources are diverted as a result.




Second of all how exactly is the common ownership of the means of production compatible with "a gift economy based on generalised reciprocity"? "Gift" economy implies autonomous producers whose productive activities are disconnected with each other. On the other hand if production was based on common ownership of the means of production then everyone would be part of the same productive unit working according to a common plan and the idea of a "gift" economy would become pure nonsense...

No you are misinderstanding the point. Generalised reciprocity is not direct reciprocity. Goods in a free access economy are produced through social labour - voluntarily. So we give back to society (amongst other things) out of a sense of moral obligation to reciporcate for what we receive from society. We are not talking about quid pro quo exchanges here - I give you this if you give me that. We are talking instead about generalised recipocity - I take this and in return acknowlege my debt to society as a whole by giving back according to my ability

Its got nothing to do with productive activities being "disconnected" with each other Production units in a communist society can in be directly linked with other units in a supply chain or not as the case may be. That does no make production any the less a spocialised process. Where did the copper cables come from in the power station that provides the electricity to power the machinery in the factory that produces tin cans that are sent sent to some other factory that produces tinned peaches? See? Ultimately we are all connected.

But this is not really about the productiuon units as such is it? Its about the individual in a communist society and his or her relationship to the wider society. And as I say this can be be based on a sense of generalised reciprocirty which in fact makes it a gift economy







Such as?.

The compensation model of rationing for example. Far more straightforward and less bureaucratic than a labour time voucher model in my view




I understand labour-time accounting to apply to both the consumption spheres and the production spheres although the former is based on individuals own plans while the latter is organised by society at large.


Sure but you need to make a distinction between labour time accounting and the labour time voucher system. The former has been suggested as an an alternative to money as a single common unit of accounting. I am skeptical of this as I am of other system that try to do the same e.g. energy accounting. I am an advocate of calculation in kind in other words. Labour vouchers as a form of rationing, though it involves labour time accounting, has a different purpose to that of the allocation of resources

[robbo203]

An interesting peice here which is relevant to this discussion http://www.newsandletters.org/Issues/2005/July-Aug/Youth_July-Aug_05.htm

[ZeroNowhere]

Well when Marx at least objected to the "equality of wages" slogan and advocated the slogan "abolition of the wages system" he made it clear that by wages he meant the amount of money payed to the worker by a capitalist.Well, he certainly did not have a vague, trans-historical view of wages, which would not have been of much use for actual analysis. I think that your statement here is generally true, although it is worth noting that it is not necessarily 'a capitalist', as in, "Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labor into the relationship of all men to labor. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist." Of course, he identifies a similar characteristic in co-ops in Capital, vol. 3. Perhaps it would be clearer to simply identify wages as the price of the commodity labour-power; as labour would be directly social under Marx's initial phase of communism, labour-power would not be a commodity, and there would be no commodity-production, therefore no wages.