Is the concept of "everyone has the same wage" fair.

[PassTheBeer]

Hello !
I'm new to this forum, and this is my first thread.
I am a right winged conservative and will be spending most of my time at the opposing views section. But this thread is somewhat more fitting for the Theory section. So lets begin.

While browsing this forum I stumbled upon a certain thread where it has been argued that everyone, doctors and thrash-man should have the same wage.
So lets take a look at this example...

A guy called John goes to high-school. He has great interest in the subject, he is focused on the school and has grand ambitions. His other colleagues are slackers, they don't care about their education and future, they just live for the day. John finishes the high-school and goes to study medicine, since he did well on his tests. The other once went for cooks, waiters, hairdressers etc. since they weren't accepted into better schools, and frankly they didn't care. John finishes college and takes a loan from a bank and opens a private clinic for certain diseases. His business plan is successful and gets a lot of income.. In 8 years he becomes a millionaire owning 5 clinics around the country. The other ones in that time are struggling with life, since they weren't smart enough / didn't have the right ambition to succeed.

John worked , studied and planned hard and he made it. Congrats.

Hm... but let me change this story a bit... Lets say John didn't open a company but instead he got a great job in a human cell research lab. (Because he worked, studied, showed ambition).. So, why should he have the same salary as his slacker friends ?



And no, this is not a provocation or trolling, this is a valid question. In fact, after some time I might just join your ranks. Depends if I see the errors in my ways. Thank you !

[JerryBiscoTrey]

While browsing this forum I stumbled upon a certain thread where it has been argued that everyone, doctors and thrash-man should have the same wage.



why should he have the same salary as his slacker friends ?





Okay well the idea of everybody getting the same wage now is sort of a hard concept to grasp but we will be weened off the wage system as part of the Socialist transition period (however, anarchists believe something different, you'd have to check with one on what they believe).

And his friends will need to contribute to society in some way or they will not receive the benefits that society has to offer. Remember it was Vladimir Lenin who said, "if a man does not work, neither does he eat."

Does that answer your question?

[Tablo]

Communist Anarchists want to abolish the wage system too, but may retain it temporarily for part of the transition to Communism. In all honesty that will be a decision made based on the circumstances and the feelings of those in the community. They may also use other means too. Collectivist Anarchists want to retain wages post revolution.

[Jalapeno Enema]

Socialism (the stage of human progression prior to communism) does not necessarily mean equal salaries. It means getting paid for how much, how long, how well you work. Robert Owen, and later Karl Marx advocated the idea of "labour vouchers", where citizens would be rewarded according to the amount of labor they contribute to society, and it's importance to the common good.

The idea is a classless, stateless society, not a free-loading one. I don't see currency abolished right away (but then again, that's why we have socialism). The idea isn't that a Dr. gets a janitor's pay, but that there is no difference between wage for people who work for the same occupation, and to decrease the pay disparity between classes.

There shouldn't be equal pay. First off, wages in monetary value should be banned. When socialism progresses to the point of communism, wages in monetary values should be banned altogether. Second of all, we stress the need for a classless, stateless society. Since currency will have to be phased out, wages would still be paid, but reasonably.

There would be no difference (or very little) between people who work in the same occupation. Nor would there be a huge gap between people of different occupations (as we witness in capitalism). The richest 1 percent of U.S. citizens earned 24 % of the nation's total income as IcarusAngel pointed out in another thread. That is absurd. I don't mind making less then somebody who works harder then I, but at what point is vaulting ambition too much? I believe it was Lenin who argued that the maximum salary should be no more the four times the minimum salary. Owning four times the stuff you neighbors do is still well off, wouldn't you agree?

In a world where people make about the same, or past that, when you can do whatever you chose but there's no monetary compensation, the question I hear often is some variant to "why would John chose to be a Dr. and Steve a janitor?"

A friend I had years ago put it succinctly. Because John wants to be a doctor, and Steve wants to be a janitor. Both contribute to society, both are vital duties. Perhaps John wants the prestige of being a doctor. Perhaps he wants to make a deliberate and instant impact on the lives of others. Perhaps he enjoys the challenge. Steve on the other hand likes the alone time, and doesn't want to handle the stress. Does that mean Steve is a bad person? Does that mean Steve doesn't deserve comfort?

[F9]

This misunderstanding it seems to me that it comes cause a lot of people (wrongly) associate egalitarianism with communism.Communism at non time represents the idea that everyone should get the same amount of income.Communism is completely based on the say "from each according his ability , to each according his needs" and this obviously makes it clear that communism has nothing to do with equal wage to everyone.

Also, as per communism(real one) there is no wage, there is no money, just people getting what they need.


Fuserg9:star:

(Short answer cause i have a 2000 words essay to end for... tomorrow:closedeyes:, will come back if i remember it for the rest of what you are saying)

[Kotze]

Welcome to this horrible forum!

I basically agree with the answers, yet as a true leftist this of course doesn't stop me from posting a tirade on my own:

It's true that there are a few people on this board who go so far that they say everybody should have the same income, regardless of whether they work at all; but that is not a demand by the majority of the left, not even among those who call themselves communist. The leftist claim is rather that a big chunk of a rich person's income is usually due to being in a position of power where they can leech off others or due to dumb luck rather than a particular talent or effort. So while I concede that there is a point where reducing income differentials comes into conflict with motivating people to work I believe we are far from that point.

I'm sure that you will get wide agreement here that people should get higher pay if they work longer or if they do particularly unpleasant work. Things get more iffy when it gets to talent. Some claim it's not fair to reward you for winning the genetic lottery, some don't agree with that, some do agree yet for practical considerations still would reward it.


Hm... but let me change this story a bit... Lets say John didn't open a company but instead he got a great job in a human cell research lab. (Because he worked, studied, showed ambition).. So, why should he have the same salary as his slacker friends ?For that story to work as an argument against pay equality, something needs to be spelled out — that John is only willing to choose the activity that is better for society as a whole in return for higher pay. And how likely is that, or rather, how much of such an incentive is needed? Would kids who want to become scientists now have a different opinion if they lived in a world where you make more money as a stripper? Err, I'm actually not sure that we aren't living in such a world right now.

Also consider that different income levels are to some extent the outcome of how scarce people are who have a specific degree. In the socialist/communist/whateverist world aquiring these skills wouldn't require having rich parents or going into debt, on the contrary, people would get paid during their training. So there would be less — but not zero — pressure to lure a lucky few with very high pay.

[PassTheBeer]

(Short answer cause i have a 2000 words essay to end for... tomorrow:closedeyes:, will come back if i remember it for the rest of what you are saying)

Good luck with that :D

Anyway, it seems I will have to learn a little bit more in-depth about every leftist "faction". Is there a thread which says what exactly a Trotskyist/Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/anarchist etc. is ?

[Victus Mortuum]

Is the concept of "everyone has the same wage" fair?

What is fair? Economic dictatorships based on lottery and heredity? Subject yourself to these organizations or starve? An elected oligarchy (republic) that wholly serves the wishes and needs of these economic dictators? Before you throw out the word "fair" you should turn it on your own system and decide if (a) that is a standard you want to use and (b) your own system meets your own criteria.

Who wants the same wage for everyone? Be careful not to attribute that position to all leftists, just because one happened to support it. I wouldn't assume that all rightists support privatization of all industries ("anarcho"-capitalism/libertarianism).

Leftists want freedom and democracy in the highest possible degree. It's just that we AREN'T living in a free and democratic society right now. We see radical-democratic control over the MoP (means of production...the corporations and industries) as a fundamental freedom that people need in order to bring about this. Only when people can freely pursue their goods - do what they wanna do - as long as they don't interfere with others' pursuits, will most leftists be satisfied. We want to remove all the things that interfere with and impede that pursuit, including economic and political oligarchs. Remember that as you explore leftism in general.

-----

A brief look at what your "fairness" is:

A) Every person is born into the genetic lottery
B) Every person is raised in the sociological lottery
C) Every person is tossed in the economic-ownership lottery

Is it "fair" to judge people based on something they didn't work for, but that they randomly received? A person born unable to walk should be judged on the same standard as those who can? A person born unable to think clearly (mental handicap) should be judged on the same standard as a genius? A person who didn't get a basic education should be judged on the same standard as a kid who got a fantastic education? A person whose parents were too busy trying to pay the bills and work to help them out should be judged on the same standard as a person whose parents were always there to help out whenever needed? A person whose parents could afford a bigger college tuition should be judged on the same standard as a person whose parents had no money to spare to help their kid with college? A person who must do hard work for an economic dictator by luck or heredity should be judged on the same standard as a person who is an economic dictator by luck or heredity?

Those are just some basic reasons why your claim of fairness is flawed...

Just a basic thought on your question. Feel free to respond with questions if you have them.

[JerryBiscoTrey]

Is there a thread which says what exactly a Trotskyist/Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/anarchist etc. is ?

Im not sure but there are groups for each tendency that you can check out

[syndicat]

you don't need to learn about all those ideological tags. that's not really very relavent to the question you ask.

first of all, I'd point out that your story makes a false assumption. it assumes that people who "lose" in the capitalist game are the "slackers", people who don't work hard, and the people who get rich are the people who work hard. that's just not the actual reality. that's just ideological propaganda. about half of all rich people, according to economists, got there thru inheritance of wealth to start with, or they came from a prosperous upper middle class family that encouraged ambition and learning and provided key initial bits of resources (the latter is the story of Bill Gates).

you say the high school guy who ends up as a health entrepreneur and makes a lot of money owns a bunch of clinics. okay, this means he hires a lot of people. why is he able to make profits off their labor? Because within the existing system ownership of productive property/business assets is highly concentrated. a very large majority don't own productive property they can use to earn a living and are forced to seek work from employers. it is only due to this class monopoly that employers can suppress wages low enough to make a profit. if the worker and the employer actually had exactly the same bargaining power, then the entrepreneur would have to be a social entrepreneur who founds an organization in which all the employees have equal say and equal claim to the earnings.

second, you ignore the way that access to education is skewed by class. medical school positions are restricted in order to ensure that there aren't so many doctors that doctors can't sustain high fees and high incomes. it is extremely expensive to go to med school, and in the last few decades access to higher ed in general has been increasingly restricted. about 2/3 of high school grads in the USA start college but only 28 percent obtain a four year degree. partly this is the poor preparation they've gotten in schools throughout their lives (gross inequality in funding etc. betwen wealthy and poor schools for example), and partly due to lack of financial support.

also, it's simply false to say that the person who goes thru college and med school is "working harder" than someone who gets a working class job after high school. college and grad and professional school are for many people very rewarding experiences...opprtunity to learn interesting subjects, discuss things with people with similar interests. it's simply false that this is "harder work" than someone working as a bus driver or janitor.

the reason why doctors are paid so much is not because they "worked hard for it", tho they may have done that. it's because there is a restricted pool of people with the long training and credentials to do this activity. this gives them more bargaining power in a market economy.

let's suppose that there is free education throughout life, and students are given stipends to live on while studying. why should they be paid more than someone working in a factory?

in general most socialists believe there should be some public goods and services provided through systems of social provision, preferably free. this includes things like education and health care. education and health care are relevant because they are essential to developing and sustaining your abilities. and equal access to the means to develop one's potential is a part of positive liberty. achieving this is part of working class liberation.

much inequality in income is derived from the class system. people owning business assets and sucking down income just from owning creates huge inequality. yet this class of capital owners are essentially parasites.

you asked about what is "fair". so it's a question about justice. oppression, domination, and exploitation are primary forms of injustice. the class system is based on the domination, that is, the oppression, of the working class majority. that is a primary form of injustice. so, if the working class were to get rid of the class system, gain control of the means of production, expropriate the capitalists and dislodge the manaterial class, they'd be in a position to implement a form of remuneration they find just. if they've all fought to achieve this liberation and all have equal access to means to develop their skills, participate equally in the decision-making, why shouldn't they all earn the same hourly rate?

[Summerspeaker]

I adamantly believe in an equality of consumption as the end goal. Wages and the price system cause more harm than they provide value. An automated economy of distributed abundance would make the whole question obsolete.

[PassTheBeer]

your story makes a false assumption. it assumes that people who "lose" in the capitalist game are the "slackers", people who don't work hard, and the people who get rich are the people who work hard.


I will dare and call this "social Darwinism" I'm not sure if that term is used for something else but It somewhat fits here. I believe that everyone can succeed if they figure out the "right capitalistic combination".. Invest right and earn, make an interesting product and earn, present certain skills to certain people and earn, offer services that the market requires and earn. Take a look at Denmark for example.. or the Netherlands.. Would you want to turn such developed countries into a planned economy country ? They are doing fine.

[Kotze]

Wasn't your original question about how important pay differentials are? Now you talk about central planning. Even though I do believe that specific policy combinations are more stable in the long run than others, I have to admit that people with any combination of opinions about these two questions exist. If you are uncomfortable with central planning, this doesn't imply you have to be in favour of big income differentials.

Anyway.

You talk about investing and being productive, but how do you define these things? I'd like to know how you distinguish between investing and gambling.

If you try to measure the productivity of anybody in terms of income, you will run into problems. Say a person receives a high income for what he does, retires early, gets bored, and at some point decides to do it for free. It's the same activity, yet the productivity evaluation through income is completely different. Or think about price-gouging cartels.

Take a bird's eye view of the economy. The question is this: Is the activity I'm looking at conserving the wealth of humanity, increasing the wealth of humanity, or is it something else? For example I might do nothing yet have a big income stream from being an absentee owner of land. The land exists independently of any work on my own. So in that case I'm not productive at all, but that doesn't stop me from receiving money. I might say I am "offering a service that the market requires" — by stopping to withhold what I didn't produce yet own.

[syndicat]

I will dare and call this "social Darwinism" I'm not sure if that term is used for something else but It somewhat fits here. I believe that everyone can succeed if they figure out the "right capitalistic combination".. Invest right and earn, make an interesting product and earn, present certain skills to certain people and earn, offer services that the market requires and earn. Take a look at Denmark for example.. or the Netherlands.. Would you want to turn such developed countries into a planned economy country ? They are doing fine.

What do you mean by "succeed"? Your statement here completely fails to engage with or respond to the arguments I gave above. Your claims here are merely pro-capitalist propaganda. The class structure of the USA is in fact quite rigid. the majority of people die in the class they're born into.

First, the problem with your bit about "investing." This requires having capital to invest. A large part of the working class live paycheck to paycheck. The working class tends to have virtually zero savings.

Suppose someone does save some money and start a business. This does happen from time to time. So, then they "succeed" by exploiting others...hiring them at the lowest wages they can get away with, working them as hard as they can. They can do this because the majority have no independent means for a living and must seek work from employers. The alternative to not getting a job is poverty, destitution or worse. So people who businesses can take advantage of this situation to make profits off the labor of others. This is rank injustice.

You suppose falsely that the issue is market or planning. But really the issue is about the fact that capitalism is built on oppression, exploitation and vast inequality.

[Rousedruminations]

What syndicate is saying is entirely true. What every country needs is a redistribution of wealth among all classes. It is an act of fraternal brotherly or sisterly friendship among all human beings. It comes out of the tremendous and unequivocal love you might have for humanity as whole despite race, creed, religion or whatever there might be that may end up putting barriers among us, furthering the process of individualization, thus making us extremely selfish. Most religiously conservative people on the right " preach " about selflessness yet when the notion of sacrificing or being altruisitic, for another person who is desititue, poor or homeless they balk and are repulsed by it.

Prior to communism is sociailism, where the egalitarian message of wages is not an issue it merely occurs during the utopian phase of having a perfect world ( or close to it ) where equal wages despite what profession you are in is finally acheived. As syndicate pointed out, capitalism is built on oppression, exploitation and the vast inequality you see everywhere. Capitalism is also the legalization of all forms of greed. So why allow it, if most religions ( if you are religious) preach that greediness/selfishness on all levels is immoral or unethical ? I'm an athiest, yet Capitalism goes against the the kernal truth of why religions are there in the first place. I'm no strong advocate of the liberal Michael Moore (another capitalist), yet after watching the film, it reminds me of several catholic priests who say that relgion in itself is completely against capitalism. Hypocritical if you were a businessman and a fanatical evangelist ? Or .. should we blame it on our corrupitble nature ? - how about being less corruptible so we can remain to be seen as decent human beings in this generation.

I do like the idea of having a margin of error analysis for wages where by lenin advocated that the maximum wages permitted, should be 4 times the minimum wage.

To conclude, id like to say that examples of this around the world we always bemuse me..

" Why would you have 52 rooms in one house as a family of 4 , when you really need 5 ? "

this will never make sense to me.

[syndicat]

I do like the idea of having a margin of error analysis for wages where by lenin advocated that the maximum wages permitted, should be 4 times the minimum wage.


But what would justify this? in the soviet union they had at least this level of inequality, but that was an oppressive, repressive class system where the bureaucratic class dominated and exploited the working class.

we should start from the assumption that if a revolutionary change is a common venture of the working class, everyone should end up getting the same fruits of victory, and thus an equal wage.

[PassTheBeer]

First, the problem with your bit about "investing." This requires having capital to invest. A large part of the working class live paycheck to paycheck. The working class tends to have virtually zero savings.

Suppose someone does save some money and start a business. This does happen from time to time. So, then they "succeed" by exploiting others...hiring them at the lowest wages they can get away with, working them as hard as they can. They can do this because the majority have no independent means for a living and must seek work from employers. The alternative to not getting a job is poverty, destitution or worse. So people who businesses can take advantage of this situation to make profits off the labor of others. This is rank injustice.

You suppose falsely that the issue is market or planning. But really the issue is about the fact that capitalism is built on oppression, exploitation and vast inequality.

There is a "minimum wage" after all, which is decided by the state.
I work as a CNC machine engineer for a local machine part company.
The pay is good (as all other employs have) and I have good working conditions. My best friend and neighbor inherited his fathers workshop, which is quite small and the machines are old. We bought a newer machine recently and started our own little business, making cogs and tractor parts for local farmers and foresters. We are partners and if this rate of income keeps up I will consider quitting my job and investing more into "my business" .. I don't see any harm in it

[Jalapeno Enema]

I believe that everyone can succeed if they figure out the "right capitalistic combination".. how?


Invest right and earnGotta have money to make money?


make an interesting product and earn,
Here's a product:
http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/antigravitycat.gif

I just hope that somebody doesn't steal my idea (http://www.lifehack.org/articles/productivity/thomas-edison-versus-nikola-tesla-who-is-more-productive.html)

"Tesla claimed he was offered US$50,000 (~ US$1.1 million in 2007, adjusted for inflation) if he redesigned Edison's inefficient motor and generators, making an improvement in both service and economy In 1885 when Tesla inquired about the payment for his work, Edison replied, "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor," thus breaking his word Earning US$18 per week, Tesla would have had to work for 53 years to earn the amount he was promised. The offer was equal to the initial capital of the company. Tesla immediately resigned when he was refused a raise to US$25 per week." (read more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#France_and_the_United_States))


present certain skills to certain people and earn,Unfortunately I'm not David Beckham. . .I can juggle. . .course, that hasn't made me any money. I guess by "everyone can succeed" you meant "not anyone".


offer services that the market requires and earn.The market in India, "the most populous democracy in the world" requires human organs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/18/india.theobserver). Luckily tsunami victims were able to cash in on that, since the wealthy recipients of the organs minded not where the organs came from.

[Rafiq]

This is an interesting question.
But you have to look outside of the context of current Capitalist society.

In our Workers society,see, children will be taught to value education, education will be something treasured and it will not be something people don't want to do. Basically, you won't be slacking off, because, the school system will be entirely different. The school system will not be a system that destroys creativity and a system that does not give second chances.

People slack off because when they fail, they see no reason to try harder, because they make school so utterly boring, people turn away from it.

Thsi will be different, kids will not be indocrinated the same bullshit they are today. The Idea is that they will want to learn more, more and more.

School will be something kids look forward to, therefore slacking off will only be hurting yourself.

[PassTheBeer]

I couldn't quote the post with the cat on the toast since I'm not able to post links.

Anyway.. what capitalistic combination to use ?
The one Warren Buffett one.

..Yes, from 1 dollar, make 1.2 dollars ... Unless you are a brick beaker in India or favela dweller in Rio ,with micromanagement you can save up money. Then invest it... or simply put it in a bank and watch the $$$ grow.. Sheesh, its a big world with lots of opportunities... Make something and sell it :closedeyes:...... That's why the USA is the land of opportunity... in a way its a gamble, yes... But a pretty good one...

:closedeyes::closedeyes::closedeyes::closedeyes: ....that smiley is so awesome :lol:

Anyway.. I am stressing again.. I'm not a leftist..(yet).. I am here to learn the red way of thinking and see the errors in my way.. Also, maybe its more fitting to move this thread to the Learning section of the forum.. I'l let the admin decide :closedeyes: ...... :closedeyes:(:D)

[syndicat]

There is a "minimum wage" after all, which is decided by the state.


so what? that doesn't refute the argument that people are forced to work for employers. at present there are about 5 job seekers for every job. people will take what they're offered. if the bargaining power between employers were equal, they could take people on only with equal say and equal wages. there might still be social entrepreneurs who do the organizing, but they'd not make more than others and certainly would not own the means of production.

the situation of someone who starts up their own business is unusual. the people who own small businesses are only 6 percent of the population. the average small business fails.

and you say you "don't see the harm in it." the harm lies in the social relations it presupposes. it allows owners of capital to exploit people as wage-workers and make profit off their labor, and to control them and control what they do. also, ownership of capital enables people to gain an income without working. once a person owns a business, they don't have to do work of managing the workers, they can sell it and put their money in investments. if person A started up a business and A's daughter inherits it, she is legally entitled to an income from it even if she does no work there. capital ownership creates a permanent claim on the income generated by the labor of a business's workers even if that person does nothing.

[Rousedruminations]

But what would justify this? in the soviet union they had at least this level of inequality, but that was an oppressive, repressive class system where the bureaucratic class dominated and exploited the working class.

we should start from the assumption that if a revolutionary change is a common venture of the working class, everyone should end up getting the same fruits of victory, and thus an equal wage.

syndicate i guess this would be a common attribute in a communist utopian society if the human race eventually gets there and i am hopeful that it will ! ... in saying all this, what is deemed to be written on paper historically and in the present as communist was in no way communist at the very least it would hardly be called socialist .. so bourgeoisie propoganda yet again deceives the masses, without the proper 'education'.

[Jalapeno Enema]

..Yes, from 1 dollar, make 1.2 dollars ... Unless you are a brick beaker in India or favela dweller in Rio ,with micromanagement you can save up money. Then invest it... or simply put it in a bank and watch the $$$ grow..)
What the hell kind of bank do you use? 20cents per dollar? I'm calling shenanigans.

Your "money in the bank" is nothing more then a cappie fairytale.

Looking at my statements, if I had $1000 in my savings account, I would make $10.04 after six months.

Calculating that for ten years makes $221.20.

Assuming I live to the ripe old age of 80 (55 years), I'd have $2457.70.

If current inflation rates remain steady (3.43% since 1913),
prices will double every 20 years (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term_Inflation.asp). Even if I keep putting money in the bank, if I keep my money there long term, I'll go fucking broke.

Long story short, compound inflation out-paces compound interest.

[ckaihatsu]

While browsing this forum I stumbled upon a certain thread where it has been argued that everyone, doctors and thrash-man should have the same wage.




John worked , studied and planned hard and he made it. Congrats.

Hm... but let me change this story a bit... Lets say John didn't open a company but instead he got a great job in a human cell research lab. (Because he worked, studied, showed ambition).. So, why should he have the same salary as his slacker friends ?


I actually appreciate these kinds of practical political issues, as I think they get to the crux of what a / any politics actually is, going forward, for everyone in society.

I'm going to address this issue of proportional material reward in a "timeline" manner, going from our current situation forward into a possible future (socialist) implementation.





you asked about what is "fair". so it's a question about justice. oppression, domination, and exploitation are primary forms of injustice. the class system is based on the domination, that is, the oppression, of the working class majority. that is a primary form of injustice. so, if the working class were to get rid of the class system, gain control of the means of production, expropriate the capitalists and dislodge the manaterial class, they'd be in a position to implement a form of remuneration they find just. if they've all fought to achieve this liberation and all have equal access to means to develop their skills, participate equally in the decision-making, why shouldn't they all earn the same hourly rate?


This is a *crucial* point that is all-too-often overlooked -- in terms of actual *benefits* to people it is *far* better to work in a revolutionary political capacity, against the *mass* deleterious effects of injustice, oppression, domination, and exploitation, than to *specialize* in some professional medical capacity that might only benefit a few tens of thousands of people who happen to suffer from a specific medical malady.

Furthermore, those who are actively struggling in parallel to bring about the end of capitalism once and for all will be at the *political* (humanitarian) cutting-edge, with the best outlook for society and political decision-making once they've brought about that post-capitalist world in common. That political momentum would serve as the best environment and context for then determining what system of remuneration would be most appropriate for that world of self-liberated labor.





It's true that there are a few people on this board who go so far that they say everybody should have the same income, regardless of whether they work at all; but that is not a demand by the majority of the left, not even among those who call themselves communist.


I happen to be of the position that a post-capitalist political economy would -- theoretically, admittedly -- liberate so much raw productive industrial capacity that it would enable a basic material *baseline* of social provision for each and every person on the planet, without regard to work input.

In other words, I'm simply extrapolating from what syndicat just said -- a political movement that cuts *against* social oppressions would likewise *enable* a privation-free and egalitarian social reality, on a mass collective basis.





Socialism (the stage of human progression prior to communism) does not necessarily mean equal salaries. It means getting paid for how much, how long, how well you work. Robert Owen, and later Karl Marx advocated the idea of "labour vouchers", where citizens would be rewarded according to the amount of labor they contribute to society, and it's importance to the common good.

The idea is a classless, stateless society, not a free-loading one. I don't see currency abolished right away (but then again, that's why we have socialism). The idea isn't that a Dr. gets a janitor's pay, but that there is no difference between wage for people who work for the same occupation, and to decrease the pay disparity between classes.

There shouldn't be equal pay. First off, wages in monetary value should be banned. When socialism progresses to the point of communism, wages in monetary values should be banned altogether. Second of all, we stress the need for a classless, stateless society. Since currency will have to be phased out, wages would still be paid, but reasonably.


In terms of a *formal* post-capitalist political economy -- especially one that might still use a system of (post-commodity) abstracted material values of some sort -- we tend to find some "splintering" going on within the revolutionary leftist opinion.

I fall back on my assertion that a 'baseline' of social provision would realistically exist, at least -- meaning that, in my conception, no one could be *forced* into societal productivity by threatening their life or livelihood -- it would defeat the very definition of what 'liberation' and 'self-determination' means.

But beyond that baseline I think there would be plenty of "headroom" for more-intricate valuations, for a larger, more sophisticated economy -- one based on labor time, primarily, since the production would be in a post-commodity mode of economics / valuations.





So -- after easily dismissing the *capitalist* method of material valuation -- we're left with one implication of this fact of modern material production: That no one can draw a direct line from the *products* (goods and services) of mental / emotional / physical labor efforts, back to their solely existing *sources* of labor in any kind of definitive way. (For example, how many people, and which ones, exactly, should be credited for all of the knowledge contained in all of Wikipedia's pages, and for how many hours of their time, respectively? Or, how does a new owner of a used chair properly back-compensate the artisan who produced that chair 50 years ago that's still being used today?)

If even labor-conscious *Marxists* can't arrive at a definite system of quantification of material labor effort into finished goods and services, for the purpose of setting up a valid system of ratios, then we sure as hell know that the *capitalist* system of labor-*exploiting* valuations is even *further* from reflecting an accurate correlation of labor effort to abstract value.


Given this intractability of the conventional individualistic approach to material valuations for effort *at all*, I think we should also consider throwing out the individualistic mentality altogether and instead favor a collectivization of benefit-taking -- as with mass social services -- alongside the mass collectivization of assets and resources, including human labor.





I guess I have more of an "impromptu dinner party among friends" take on the allocation of labor into filling various work roles in a post-capitalist economy. Given that a post-class-divide society would be relieved from interference from the motives of capital, it seems to me that a general social mode of *cooperation* -- instead of petty competition -- would prevail.

If cooperation prevails then formality -- formal work roles or job positions -- would be rendered *superfluous* (and extraneous) as everyone could instead freely decide whether their participation in something would really be constructive, or if perhaps they're not quite up to the requirements of the tasks. If someone had less-than-accurate judgment -- an overenthusiastic child, for example -- and decided to plunge into some work role that they weren't very helpful at, it would become apparent fairly quickly to that person's co-workers and they would probably mention it to each other and raise the point with the sub-par worker, all in an informal way.

I find that even the term 'work roles' sounds too formal to my ear in the context of a revolutionary workers' collective work environment. Conceptually I picture the array of work roles to be shaped more like a bull's eye, rather than an org. chart hierarchy -- the most critical roles would be at the very center of things and one could not just plop themselves down in the middle of it all. Less-critical and helper roles would be further out on the radius, with interns and students at the very fringes, in discretionary, more-observational roles.

In this way there could be as much fluidity as the situation might call for at any given moment -- the flatness of the distribution of work roles would allow for seamless overlapping and sharing of tasks, since everyone could be aware of what everyone else is doing, *how* it is they're doing it, and what the overall project requires. Without the complications of turf-battle politics there could be an optimal intermixing of laborers to cover any and all tasks within the project, reconfiguring themselves on-the-fly as the layout of the project changed through time.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1773333&postcount=392





I think you're expressing a kind of a priori, idealized *pessimism* about the social arrangement process, which is particularly puzzling to hear if the context is truly commune-ized, for *all* work implements, large and small. Without the privilege-skewing influence of private capital what possible concerns about mismatching *could there be*??? At worst something might work out for a short while with one person occupying a particular work role, but then after awhile the liberated workers' political body might determine that, for whatever reason, a *different* person would be better in that work role -- or, to jettison the all-or-nothing dichotomy, the first worker might have to take a political / functional *backseat* to someone else who is considered by the larger body of workers to be *more appropriate* for the high-visibility, implementation-oriented leading edge of things with the political / functional line that *they're* espousing.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1772285&postcount=385

[Oswy]

...

Examine the issue at a deeper level.

If you're looking to argue about what might be called 'human talents' then these things can be attributed to either genetic or environmental factors, or a bit of both. Thanks to our genes we might be born with a physiology that has high potential for athletic success, say, or for effective physical labour. Thanks to being born into a comfortably-off family with well-educated parents we can enjoy all the economic and social advantages those things bring for high potential in academic or vocational success. We could travel through all kinds of genetic or environmental factors which make for advantages (or disadvantages) but the instructive fact is that in all cases they aren't easily characterised as 'deserved'. At the deeper level we can't in any simple way 'take credit' for who we become because what we become is shaped by forces outside of our control. Once you've grasped this aspect of the issue I think it changes the way you think about who is 'deserving' or 'undeserving' of rewards for what they do or fail to do.