Do you think in a socialist society there should be marginal wage differences?

[durhamleft]

See I think some of you will disagree with this, but I think that in any socialist world it would only be fair that someone who say, cleans sewers or does a harder job (eg. a dangerous one) should get something extra in return for their extra labour, rather than say a teacher or musician whose job may be as important but is simply easier. Thoughts?

[Ocean Seal]

At the very least in the first stages of socialism there are certain jobs which we should reward more than others. For the reason that if two jobs pay the same and there is a harder and more dangerous one people are going to opt out of it, and being that education will be free in a socialist society most people would end up not choosing certain jobs. But then again wage differences will eventually be abolished when we start producing more and wages become irrelevant.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think teacher, etc was a bad profession to use as an example.
Should it? No. Would I personally mind it there were marginal wage differences? No. As long as access to the means of production is voluntary, and worker self management is strong.

[Kamos]

See I think some of you will disagree with this, but I think that in any socialist world it would only be fair that someone who say, cleans sewers or does a harder job (eg. a dangerous one) should get something extra in return for their extra labour, rather than say a teacher or musician whose job may be as important but is simply easier. Thoughts?

Everyone can clean sewers well (aside from handicapped people, obviously), but not everyone can do music. So the yucky part of sewer cleaning is nicely counterbalanced by the fact that other jobs take special skills or even a born talent to do. No, no wage differences should be there, other than whatever wage differences cannot be abridged at any given stage.

[Old Mole]

I am against wages, because they are integral to capitalism. But yes, it would probably be unavoidable in the first stages of socialism, even if it is a problem.

[DinodudeEpic]

Why have wages? Why not just split the profits the workers get from selling their products evenly, and have the workers who invent stuff sell the rights to use an invention to anyone as they please?

(Note that this is assuming that a system of workers' cooperatives is the socialist society in question.)

[hatzel]

Not that I necessarily sing the praises of parecon at every opportunity, but hey, why not just quote from Parecon: Life after capitalism in any case? :)


Why, if we believe in equality, don’t we give everybody one car, one tennis racquet, seven plums, thirteen books (one by Jacqueline Suzanne, one by Chomsky, etc.), and two green shirts? The answer, of course, is that being equally deserving does not mean that people have the same preferences. We want people to have the freedom to follow diverse preferences, but equality does imply that people shouldn’t draw more from the public supply than anyone else. Okay, so what if I prefer leisure time to an extra shirt? Shouldn’t I be allowed to take my “benefits” partly in extra time? Of course. Therefore, rewarding according to effort is another way of saying that we are all rewarded equally, but that some will choose shirts, some movies, some leisure or less stressful or onerous time at work, and some saving for next year.

[...]

Contrary to these familiar norms of remuneration, we propose that desirable economies ought to distribute consumption opportunities only according to effort or sacrifice.

Whereas differences in contribution to output will derive from differences in talent, training, job assignment, tools, luck, and effort, if we define effort as personal sacrifice for the sake of the social endeavor, only effort merits compensation. Of course effort can take many forms. It may be longer work hours, less pleasant work, or more intense, dangerous, or unhealthy work. It may consist of training that is less gratifying than the training experiences others undergo or than the work others do during the same period.

[...]

If in a parecon we had jobs more or less like the ones that exist now, those doing the most onerous, harmful work would be highest paid; those doing the most pleasant and intrinsically uplifting work would be lowest paid—the opposite of the current condition. To achieve this goal we would have to assess each job’s characteristics for the effort or sacrifice per hour expended at an average level of exertion, plus have some means of oversight to keep track of which workers are expending effort at levels above or below average.

[Kotze]

Why not just split the profits the workers get from selling their products evenly, and have the workers who invent stuff sell the rights to use an invention to anyone as they please?There will be no such right to restrict putting ideas to good use, there will be research grants and prizes. What do you mean by the workers, are you referring to the whole or sharing among workers at the same workplaces?

[#FF0000]

In the USSR, they had two different pay scales. One for simple labor, and one for complex labor (Factory shit vs. Engineering, basically).

So, make of that what you will.

[Cork Socialist]

It is a problem, But correct me if i'm wrong but I would imagine its unavoidable in the first stages of Socialism.

[hatzel]

It is a problem

Why exactly? :)

[DinodudeEpic]

There will be no such right to restrict putting ideas to good use, there will be research grants and prizes. What do you mean by the workers, are you referring to the whole or sharing among workers at the same workplaces?

I meant the workers in the workplace, and the prize idea is actually great. Thanks for the idea.

[Rooster]

Shouldn't we be trying to equalise all pay and reduce working hours (reduce working day length through increased employment)? To say that we have to have wage differences seems to me to be a step backward. Why should a more complicated job such as designing aircraft be paid more than hard manual labour? If you try to have a wage difference then I imagine that the people with the higher wages would try to keep that, making it more difficult to eliminate money in the long run.

[Blake's Baby]

No there won't be wage differentials because there will be no wages. I'm not going through the revolution just for a change of management.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I do believe there was marginal wage differences within the USSR, so, yes.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I do believe there was marginal wage differences within the USSR, so, yes.

The USSR wasn't socialist.

[Hebrew Hammer]

The USSR wasn't socialist.

This is where we differ.

[Die Rote Fahne]

This is where we differ.

Because the workers had control over the means of production...and held political power in the USSR...right...

But yeah, we differ, and this thread isn't the place for us to debate that topic. Especially from a smartphone :/

[Lord Testicles]

If nobody is extracting value from your labour why would you need wages? Are workers expected to buy back the products of their labour?

[Kotze]

I meant the workers in the workplaceIf you sell lemonade next to my "separate" biz of selling pretzels, how much you can sell is strongly affected by our proximity, the prices I set, and by how salty the pretzels are. Such connections also exist on a much bigger scale. The demand for what one produces as well as the prices of the needed inputs are the result of complex interactions within society, I don't see success or failure of firms as something having much to do with an inherent quality, more the situation they are embedded in. Society should protect people from being hurled around by these circumstances.

To be fair, IIRC in other threads you also mentioned stuff like welfare and ending inheritance of wealth, but I believe that the risk of such a co-op system reverting back to a more stratified society is very high, if the connections between some processes aren't cut or at least reduced, for example people with low income shouldn't have less influence on income-distribution decisions than people with high income.

It is not talent or hard work, but the private ownership of assets, like land and factories, where most income of the super-rich comes from. I believe group property wouldn't be much different in the end. If factories are made into group-owned property of those who work there, that should spread the wealth around, but how does this work out in the long run? What if I happen to work at a much crappier factory than you when the co-op revolution comes around? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the initial distribution of technology and natural resources in co-op world is very equitable, in a market economy having a little bit of luck translates into having a little bit more power, power that makes it a little bit more likely to get a bit more power and so on, and then you easily end up with some co-ops exploiting others.

The few currently in control of means of production exploit the people they hire. A future society's institutional setup that makes it less likely for society to flip back to that should disallow ownership of these assets, even by groups. Ownership of something is the right to block access to it. Some seem to have problems wrapping their heads around this, but it logically follows that a society where means of production aren't the property of an individual or group is a society where those working at a specific plant don't have a monopoly over deciding who works there and where hindering scabs is a crime (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unions-and-strikes-t150295/index.html?p=2032317#post2032317).
Why should a more complicated job such as designing aircraft be paid more than hard manual labour?Having income differentials doesn't imply that, see the Albert quote.
If nobody is extracting value from your labour why would you need wages? Are workers expected to buy back the products of their labour?Should every individual be expected to directly produce for their own individual consumption?

[Blake's Baby]

I suspect (hope) what Skinz is refering to is 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need'.

[Lord Testicles]

Should every individual be expected to directly produce for their own individual consumption?

Of course not, that would be impractical.

[dernier combat]

There won't be wages. Wages are compensation paid by the capitalist to the worker for their labor (and this compensation is definitely not equivalent to the labor expended by the worker, which is far greater than what they are compensated for). In the initial stages of socialism (and where certain goods are scarce), labor vouchers would likely be used to renumerate labor-time.


This is where we differ.
Incidentally, this also helps us to establish just why your tendency is ideologically bankrupt.

[Jose Gracchus]

There were definitely more than two pay gradients in the USSR.

[durhamleft]

There won't be wages. Wages are compensation paid by the capitalist to the worker for their labor (and this compensation is definitely not equivalent to the labor expended by the worker, which is far greater than what they are compensated for). In the initial stages of socialism (and where certain goods are scarce), labor vouchers would likely be used to renumerate labor-time.


Incidentally, this also helps us to establish just why your tendency is ideologically bankrupt.

What the hell is a labour voucher if not money? I agree for the need for currency in the early stages of socialism, but surely any labour voucher would just be in effect money

[hatzel]

What the hell is a labour voucher if not money? I agree for the need for currency in the early stages of socialism, but surely any labour voucher would just be in effect money

I think it's universally accepted that labour vouchers are distinguished from money inasmuch as they do not circulate, which is a pretty fundamental characteristic of a monetary currency...

[Thirsty Crow]

What the hell is a labour voucher if not money?
Would you be able to buy "dollar labour vouchers" with "pound labour vouchers" as you are nowadays able to buy a certain amount of pounds for a certain amount of dollars?

[dernier combat]

What the hell is a labour voucher if not money? I agree for the need for currency in the early stages of socialism, but surely any labour voucher would just be in effect money
Labor vouchers directly equate to labor-time expended. The value of money as we know it, is largely arbitrary bullshit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Everyone should be entitled to an equal share of the productive capacity of society, to use at their discretion. This would be in addition to having their basic needs met.

Achieving this by doling out equal wages for all would simply not work, however. Partly this is because money is a poor stand-in for the productive capacity of society (banks can simply print more money without actually producing anything genuinely useful), and this is partly because money is highly exchangable, making corruption easy and inevitable.

I'm not convinced that labour vouchers present a viable alternative either. Six hours writing computer code is a different prospect to six hours breaking rocks.

Both jobs do however, involve energy. In fact, all jobs involve the consumption of physical energy - this a real cost that can be directly measured. the energy in that job is transformed into waste (heat, noise, etc), and some kind of good or service is the intended end result. Therefore all goods and services have an energy cost associated with them.

Measuring energy production/energy consumption and optimising productive processes so as to increase the ratio of "useful work" (goods produced, services rendered) to energy consumed forms the basis of economies based on energy and resources, as opposed to economies based on subjective signifiers such as "value" or signifiers with a large number of (potentially hidden) variables such as "number of hours worked".

[Die Rote Fahne]

I think we are forgetting how social all labour actually is.

[durhamleft]

Labor vouchers directly equate to labor-time expended. The value of money as we know it, is largely arbitrary bullshit.

But that's just how money is used. You could easily make £10 say worth 1 hour of time.

And regarding exchanging currency, agreed but if theres only one currency then why the need to change to labour vouchers? Surely labour vouchers are in essence money, all we would have to do would be allocate the money in a better way.

Also how could you stop labour vouchers circulating, and even if you could, i don't see why. If I want a tv which mr next dor neighbour doesnt then if were earning the same wage i dont see why i shouldnt buy it off him

[Blake's Baby]

If he has a TV he doesn't want, why shouldn't he just give it to you?

[durhamleft]

Because in reality in the early stages of socialism people will still have a 'capitalist mentality', and while I agree to a certain extent that in an ideal world that is what would happen, in practice during socialism one cannot expect immediate and complete generosity.

[Blake's Baby]

It's not generosity, and it's not 'an ideal world' either. He has something he doesn't want. You're doing him a favour taking it away... oh yeah, why would you want to do that? It doesn't make any sense for you to take away a thing he doesn't want if you want it, why would you help him out?

No wait, it totally makes sense.

[Rafiq]

I'm getting sick of these "What will the future world socialist society look like".

[robbo203]

Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I do believe there was marginal wage differences within the USSR, so, yes.

They weren't marginal differences but very substantial ones - in the order of 100:1 according to one estimate - and they werent cofined to wages either. There were also perks and various forms of payment-in-kind which disproportionately favoured the elite

[Dr Mindbender]

See I think some of you will disagree with this, but I think that in any socialist world it would only be fair that someone who say, cleans sewers or does a harder job (eg. a dangerous one) should get something extra in return for their extra labour, rather than say a teacher or musician whose job may be as important but is simply easier. Thoughts?
In a technate, the need for marginal wage differences would be unnecessary because no job occupied by humans could be deemed lowlier or less skilled than another.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm getting sick of these "What will the future world socialist society look like".
Why? Have you ever considered that maybe the reason communism never gets any likelier is because our sales technique sucks?

[Rafiq]

Why? Have you ever considered that maybe the reason communism never gets any likelier is because our sales technique sucks?

No, maybe the reason nobody likes communism is because we have people who run around with pictures of Mao, Stalin, Hammer and Sickles, Che Shirts, ect. ect. and start raging all emotional and shit.

If you want people to like communism, change the name.

Look at history, communism is always re-invented. Time for us to re-invent it.

I know, I know, we all have dealt with the whole "state capitalist" line. It doesn't work.

And, I agree with K. Marx, we have no right to lay out blueprints for the future, because we aren't utopians or Idealists.


If you are truly a Materialist, you would have no problem ditching our history and changing the name.

Enless getting the workers to power is not your first priority, and making rainbows and sunshines is.

[Rafiq]

We will not, and I repeat, will not get support if we keep laying out what the future will look like. Communism as a name is has been tarnished, destroyed, pissed on, fucked upon, and burnt.

It takes more than 7 months for the average person to uproot all the anticommunist propaganda and truly think about communism as it really is.

When we first got involved, when we thought communism, the first thing that came to our heads was dictators in aviator shades and cigars, tanks, Stalin, ect. ect.

Do you know why communism was so popular in the 20th century? because it was new to people. When people thought communism (including conservatives) they imagined a big smily face, rainbows and butterflies.

The damage has been done. I am sick of explaining, justifying our history to people, because, *News Flash*, our history is complex, complicated, and not that easy to grasp for begginers. Think about it. WWMDIHWAT? (What Would Marx Do If He Was Alive Today?)

[Dr Mindbender]

No, maybe the reason nobody likes communism is because we have people who run around with pictures of Mao, Stalin, Hammer and Sickles, Che Shirts, ect. ect. and start raging all emotional and shit.

If you want people to like communism, change the name.

Look at history, communism is always re-invented. Time for us to re-invent it.

I know, I know, we all have dealt with the whole "state capitalist" line. It doesn't work.

And, I agree with K. Marx, we have no right to lay out blueprints for the future, because we aren't utopians or Idealists.


If you are truly a Materialist, you would have no problem ditching our history and changing the name.

Enless getting the workers to power is not your first priority, and making rainbows and sunshines is.

Alright, forget communism or even its name, my point is perhaps the reason the movement for a post capitalist society is frustrated is because people at large are confused as to what we are actually arguing for.

Its been engrained culturally onto people for decades that there is no alternative to capitalism. Countering that with capitalism = evil clearly is not working. We need to present a clear mandate as to what we're actually going to replace it with.

Thats why its unhelpful to have a ''oh no, not another socialist future thread'' mentality.

[hatzel]

I'm pretty sure plenty of self-help books (what a glorious source!) always suggest you fight for something, rather than against something. Or, I don't know who said that, but I prefer to view things as what I'm moving towards, rather than what I'm moving away from. In that respect, Mindbender's right; it seems as though some people have the mindset of merely fleeing capitalism, with no real destination in place. And it's true that many people would be reluctant to follow if you just said "well...ah...I'm just going anywhere else but here..." It just seems so aimless...

If any of the above seems relevant then I'm happy :)

[Rafiq]

Alright, forget communism or even its name, my point is perhaps the reason the movement for a post capitalist society is frustrated is because people at large are confused as to what we are actually arguing for.

Its been engrained culturally onto people for decades that there is no alternative to capitalism. Countering that with capitalism = evil clearly is not working. We need to present a clear mandate as to what we're actually going to replace it with.

Thats why its unhelpful to have a ''oh no, not another socialist future thread'' mentality.

Oh, than just use Zizek's style of argument.

Zizek calls people who say that utopian, he sais "It's more Utopian to think that what we have now is the only solution, than to hope for a better one".

But think about it. These days, almost anything is possible. Scientists are looking for ways to live forever, people can cut their dick in half (Surgery) and have sex with two people at a time, the military has unheard of technology, ect. ect.

And you tell me it's impossible to have a system that's better than capitalism?

Nobody is even trying to look for solutions!

[Rafiq]

I'm pretty sure plenty of self-help books (what a glorious source!) always suggest you fight for something, rather than against something. Or, I don't know who said that, but I prefer to view things as what I'm moving towards, rather than what I'm moving away from. In that respect, Mindbender's right; it seems as though some people have the mindset of merely fleeing capitalism, with no real destination in place. And it's true that many people would be reluctant to follow if you just said "well...ah...I'm just going anywhere else but here..." It just seems so aimless...

If any of the above seems relevant then I'm happy :)

No, the problem is that we aren't even close toward moving away from the problem.

The only way to "Move Toward things" is to do so whilst at the same time "Moving away from" things. It's more important to make your goal abolishing capitalism and bring the working class to power, than to dream, write what a future society will appear as.

We need to destroy the modern economists theories, arguments, ect. ect. First, convince people that Capitalism is self destructive, and then people can start to look for solutions.


Honestly, society will come up with it's own solutions. The important thing for us is to get rid of capitalism today.

Socialism/Communism is just a process in the abolishment of stuff.

[hatzel]

It's more important to make your goal abolishing capitalism and bring the working class to power, than to dream, write what a future society will appear as.

See, I don't necessarily think that's true. Even as somebody who likes to embrace a bit of anarchism without adjectives, I don't think it's fair to just say 'we can't know exactly what a socialist society will be like, therefore we won't address it at all'. Are we expecting to abolish capitalism, and just hope that people then know what to do in its stead? Or can we at least theorise about the details of socialist society, come up with ideas, develop ideas and systems, so that people can decide whether it seems viable, whether it sounds better than capitalism. Just saying 'hey, capitalism is shit!' isn't going to make people socialists necessarily. We'll just get a load of primmies :rolleyes:

However:


Honestly, society will come up with it's own solutions.

Indeed it will. As said, I'm all for anarchism without adjectives, inasmuch as I acknowledge that all manner of economic and social systems will be tried out, and society will eventually figure everything out, what does and doesn't work etc. However, that doesn't mean that I don't have my own ideas about the most suitable economic system, for instance, for the purpose of this discussion. And it doesn't mean that I don't enjoy hearing other people developing their own theories, suggesting things and justifying them. Sure, I understand that it's not some hard and fast thing, and that many of these ideas could have to be developed and modified when put into practice, but I'd much rather somebody give me a vague idea of a direction, 'somewhere over there near that tree, but we'll figure out where is best to sit when we've got there and looked at the ground', than somebody just maintain 'we're getting away from here, that's all that matters, and eventually we'll find a decent place to sit' in the case of a discussion of where we're going...

[Rafiq]

See, I don't necessarily think that's true. Even as somebody who likes to embrace a bit of anarchism without adjectives, I don't think it's fair to just say 'we can't know exactly what a socialist society will be like, therefore we won't address it at all'. Are we expecting to abolish capitalism, and just hope that people then know what to do in its stead? .

If the workers abolish capitalism, than yes, they will know what to do in its stead.

For me, Socialism is a tool that the working class must use to take power.