Question on Marx in Gotha programme.

[Rafiq]

Did he really state that (under Socialism) the level of produced goods a worker gets will be based on the amount of time they work, and not the level of productivity?

If so, Workers would basically get the same amount of goods, even if one is working much much harder? Why would anyone have an incentive to work harder, or to even work well at all?

Don't post that video of the surprising science of what motivates us, I already saw it, and it only applies to a specific type of work.

[Paulappaul]

Where did you think he said this?

[Rafiq]

Where did you think he said this?


In the Book: Critique of the Gotha Programme

[ZeroNowhere]

Did he really state that (under Socialism) the level of produced goods a worker gets will be based on the amount of time they work, and not the level of productivity? He did say that under communist society labourers would initially probably receive compensation in proportion to their hours of work.


If so, Workers would basically get the same amount of goods, even if one is working much much harder? Why would anyone have an incentive to work harder, or to even work well at all? That's what management is for.

It's worth noting that workers basically get the same amount of goods even if one is working 'much much harder' even in present times. In any case, in modern times, where many people work together on each single product, measuring 'productivity' for individuals is probably somewhat silly.

[Paulappaul]

In the Book: Critique of the Gotha Programme

Oh well thanks dude. I would have never guessed based off the name of your topic. Care to uh.. give a quote?

[mikelepore]

It's in Part 1

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

quoting in part:

---------------

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

"Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form."

[Zanthorus]

In the Book: Critique of the Gotha Programme

Just a note, the Critique of the Gotha Programme was not a book, it was a private letter to the Marxist faction of the Socialist Workers' Party containing his critical marginal notes on the programme drawn up at the Gotha congress at which the Social-Democratic Workers' Party and the General German Workers' Congress had unified. It was originally published by Engels as a series of articles in Vorwarts during the drawing up of the Erfurt programme in order to combat certain opportunist tendencies who wanted to water down the programme to avoid a renewal of the anti-socialist laws. Probably worth keeping in mind when reading and interpreting the document.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

Bump. Lets say for example a worker has 8 hours worth of labour vouchers, what would this be able to get in a shop? How would you price each item?

[Anarpest]

If one person worked as a miner for 8 hours, and another as a thread necromancer, would they both get the same amount of labour vouchers?

[Ostrinski]

Work or starve policies would have to be implemented if productivity slowed, decreased in quality, or failed to meet plans. But other than that, the socialist mode of production is fully realized through free association.

[NewLeft]

Labour vouchers would not circulate like currency. The economy is still coordinated by the workers in relation to supply and demand. This is how labour should be allocated. The labour vouchers could take into account skill, as a transitional measure.

[Rafiq]

Bump. Lets say for example a worker has 8 hours worth of labour vouchers, what would this be able to get in a shop? How would you price each item?

I'm sorry for the wait, but I will have to dissapoint you with an even more dissapointing reply: I don't think it's worth any time speculating about what could possibly exist in future society. To be honest, I would tell you that such concepts would have to adjust to the demands in place by the mode of production, and that, we are in no position to even guess, i.e. After all, we are still stuck within the constraint of the capitalist mode of production.

[Rafiq]

I think, though, it would be of absolute necessity not to simply "Measure reward in relation to how much one 'works'" In the classical Liberalist sense, because, I don't think people should just be able to freely work and expect reward (For example, a person working extra for more rewards). But, of course, Equalitarian Commnism (To put it In Stalinist terms) is antithetical to Marxism, it is a form of Utopianism. Of course, not everyone will be equal, in that the amount of labor, and the conditions in which this labor was actualized must be taken into full account in order to calculate what one would recieve.


While I agree absolutely, totally and fully that work or starve policies would be necessary in times in which they are necessary (As mentioned by Brospierre), I think the mentality of "Work or starve" in general (As displayed by many Liberalists) as some kind of ethical rule is not only dangerous, it is completely counter revolutionary. The disgusting thought that "If you contribute nothing, you shall receive nothing" as a universal moral law is, inherently Bourgeois. Not because it is immoral, but on the contrary, because in itself it is an assertion of a moral.

[A Marxist Historian]

I think, though, it would be of absolute necessity not to simply "Measure reward in relation to how much one 'works'" In the classical Liberalist sense, because, I don't think people should just be able to freely work and expect reward (For example, a person working extra for more rewards). But, of course, Equalitarian Commnism (To put it In Stalinist terms) is antithetical to Marxism, it is a form of Utopianism. Of course, not everyone will be equal, in that the amount of labor, and the conditions in which this labor was actualized must be taken into full account in order to calculate what one would recieve.


While I agree absolutely, totally and fully that work or starve policies would be necessary in times in which they are necessary (As mentioned by Brospierre), I think the mentality of "Work or starve" in general (As displayed by many Liberalists) as some kind of ethical rule is not only dangerous, it is completely counter revolutionary. The disgusting thought that "If you contribute nothing, you shall receive nothing" as a universal moral law is, inherently Bourgeois. Not because it is immoral, but on the contrary, because in itself it is an assertion of a moral.

One thing, absolutely the only fair way is to measure in terms of hours of work, not productivity. That's not just a socialist principle but a basic principle of trade unionism.

"Piecework," pay according to productivity, is the bane of the working class under capitalism, which every union worth anything struggles to replace with hourly wages.

Now, is it economically practical to immediately go to a labor certificate system the day after the Revolution? Of course not.

Socialism is something that has to be built, after the rule of the capitalists is overthrown, in the transitional period in which you still have a separate working class, and the working class rules over the other classes of society.

The dictatorship of the proletariat. Which, as a practical proposition, might have to last for a while.

And says to them, as the Bible puts it, "he who does not work, neither shall he eat."

Is that moralistic? Damn right. During the dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian morality will triumph over bourgeois morality.

-M.H.-

[Rafiq]

One thing, absolutely the only fair way is to measure in terms of hours of work, not productivity. That's not just a socialist principle but a basic principle of trade unionism.

Yes, this is how wages are measured even today. What is your point, and how does it stand contradictory to what I said?


"Piecework," pay according to productivity, is the bane of the working class under capitalism, which every union worth anything struggles to replace with hourly wages.


Well, hypothetically, one could say that it is the very job, the condition in which the human is in which defines what he receives, that will be different, not necessarily just productivity. As I said, Equalitarian communism is antithetical to Marxism.



Socialism is something that has to be built, after the rule of the capitalists is overthrown, in the transitional period in which you still have a separate working class, and the working class rules over the other classes of society.

We don't know. Socialism, for now, systematically, is the same thing as 20th century communism, i.e Stalinism. This is what it is known as, and what it stands as today. All other Socialism external from this is a mere movement, one could say an ideology, and not a system.


The dictatorship of the proletariat. Which, as a practical proposition, might have to last for a while.


And what were you expecting?


And says to them, as the Bible puts it, "he who does not work, neither shall he eat."

Is that moralistic? Damn right. During the dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian morality will triumph over bourgeois morality.


Yes, this isn't proletarian morality, it's useless barbarism, of which is counter revolutionary. Proletarian morality is something that we know nothing of, if you were not aware. It is Bourgeois in nature. For what reason? For what reason do you deem it necessary? It's useless Moralism. Even in Bourgeois society a form of (small) welfare is given to those who do not work.