Abolishment of Wage Labour.

[RedGuevara]

I'm beginning to understand Marxism more and more and agree with it wholeheartedly but when I read writings and papers my mind begins a journey to try and wrap my mind behinds the revolutionary concepts. In a society without wage labour, would people have personal property? And if so how would they gain ownership of this property without some form of income? Please understand I ask because I'm beginning to break the walls of Capitalism and trying to understand the world through Marxists eyes. Thank you.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Marx, as far as I know, thought that personal property would still exist, especially in the early stages of communism. However, many kinds of property are more efficient when held collectively, so society will have an incentive to collectivize as much as they can. Presumably though there's stuff like a toothbrush, family heirlooms and automobiles which people would reasonably want to have for themselves.

The distinction between personal and private property is that private property is used to expand the amount of property one has - i.e it is capital. There's no necessary reason to get rid of personal property, because it's not functioning as capital.

[Creative Destruction]

In Marxist terms, the higher phase of communism would be complete when we enter an age of superabundance and free access, along with the abolition of wage labor, so there would be no reason to have income to have ownership over, say, an article of clothing or whatever item there is.

In a lower phase of communism, wage labor would exist still, though. Since the "stamp" of capitalist society would still be present in an early socialist one. Production would be organized, commonly, but along the lines of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution." Theoretically, this is to induce productivity and help society along into a communist society where class and state dissolve and money is no longer needed or desired due to the abundance of materials.

[RedGuevara]

Thank you and I agree. I wasn't think as much of owning big amounts of land that produce an income or of owning a business. More of things like a laptop, or maybe a book or even clothing. I am learning to understand the differences and such. Studying like a mad man but also I think it helps to interact with the leftist crowd.

[RedGuevara]

Well if income and wage were abolished, would items like clothing be handed out by government or what? How would such things be acquired? Just things I like to think about. Also would a state led government have a system of checks and balances? Please ignore my use of American terms, I'm learning to adjust through Marxist means.

[Creative Destruction]

Well if income and wage were abolished, would items like clothing be handed out by government or what? How would such things be acquired? Just things I like to think about. Also would a state led government have a system of checks and balances? Please ignore my use of American terms, I'm learning to adjust through Marxist means.

Two important concepts to the late phase of communism are important: superabundance and free access. "Free access" implies that you wouldn't need a government authority handing things out, but Marx never fleshed this out. This would really be up to the community to organize how things are 'handed out,' as it were. Superabundance would, ostensibly, be ushered in by the automation of drudgery work, which would leave people to good work -- or enjoyable work. Marx explained this as, being a fisherman by day, rearing cattle in the evening and being a critic at dinner (or something like that.) Also in this higher phase, there would be no state.

The lower phase of socialism, while the state still exists, different Marxists have ideas about how a worker-led state would look like.

[Einkarl]

Hello and welcome.

Would people have personal property? absolutely.

how would they gain ownership of this property without some form of income? Workers would have their needs and wants met (within reason) by virtue of the fact that their work helps power society. In other words think of these goods as the payment itself.
This is possible due to the overabundance of goods thanks to current productive forces.
Capitalists produce way more than they expect to sell and raise their prices to make up for this projected lost, socialism would abolish such surplus since goods are produced to satisfy the demand instead of making a profit.

[RedGuevara]

Thank you. That makes sense. I foresee a long process but definitely something to promote. It reduces stress of having to "pay bills" and allows for a healthier mind set.. I could easily see mental afflictions and all stress related diseases reduce. Marx was a man ahead of his time.

[Marxaveli]

Man, almost ALL stress, illness (mental and physical), and misery in general is due somehow to capitalism. I have no doubt the human condition would improve in virtually every way, exponentially, under communism compared to how it is now.

For me personally, my hatred for the system has become so great that just knowing I have to wake up under it everyday in itself brings me anxiety, misery and tension. And that doesn't even take into account the suffering of others I see all around me, especially those close to me, like my mom or my brothers. I am at the point where I do not believe I will ever be truly happy - and my only reconciliation is the complete and utter destruction of this volatile system. I have to say, becoming a Marxist really enlightened me to how the world works and I understand a lot of things that I couldn't put my finger on before. But by the same token, having a greater understanding is also a curse, because you have a greater knowledge and awareness of just how fucked the world is. It becomes frustrating too when so many people cannot see it either. The worst kind of oppression takes place when people think they are free.

[RedGuevara]

What you say Marxaveli is true. I have become more critical to the system and I find it hard to keep my mouth shut about the bull shit of the workplace. I would rather write then goto some warehouse making millions of dollars in profit to a company that can't even afford me OT or raises and insteads forces us to work faster and harder to accomplish 50 hours worth in less time while big wigs are getting bonuses and such.

[Radio Spartacus]

In Marxist terms, the higher phase of communism would be complete when we enter an age of superabundance and free access, along with the abolition of wage labor, so there would be no reason to have income to have ownership over, say, an article of clothing or whatever item there is.

In a lower phase of communism, wage labor would exist still, though. Since the "stamp" of capitalist society would still be present in an early socialist one. Production would be organized, commonly, but along the lines of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution." Theoretically, this is to induce productivity and help society along into a communist society where class and state dissolve and money is no longer needed or desired due to the abundance of materials.

I want to clarify for the OP something he will encounter as he fights the good fight with us. People define these terms, socialism and communism, differently. For example, I consider socialism and communism synonyms, as they were originally used. I do not consider socialism different from communism.

For many of us when we are referring to a society that is worker dominated and not stateless/moneyless/classless we call it the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The word dictatorship is used to mean the state is dominated by the proletariat, not that the state is crazy and evil. One could certainly have different levels of development in such a society, but Marx never articulated the difference in terms of: lower phase=socialism higher phase=communism.

Of course, we're all still comrades and this minor difference doesn't get in the way of our shared aspiration for a free world, but I thought I'd clarify that different people on the left will define these terms differently because the OP seems new to leftist rhetoric and I don't want him to be confused by people using socialism to mean different things.

[Alonso Quijano]

Marx, as far as I know, thought that personal property would still exist, especially in the early stages of communism. However, many kinds of property are more efficient when held collectively, so society will have an incentive to collectivize as much as they can. Presumably though there's stuff like a toothbrush, family heirlooms and automobiles which people would reasonably want to have for themselves.

The distinction between personal and private property is that private property is used to expand the amount of property one has - i.e it is capital. There's no necessary reason to get rid of personal property, because it's not functioning as capital.
I think it's not just amount but the way you make use of it.

If, for example, your hypothetical work involves living in two cities (by choice), and you want to own two small homes, and with the spirit of the times even offers tourists or passersbys sleep when he's not there - you can argue about it, but it's surely different from having a second house in order to rent it and make money, exploiting the one who rents.

[Lev Ulyanov]

The way Plato would put it would be that people have everything but own nothing. And Plato is, at times, very Marxist. (Or rather, Marx is, at times, very Platonic)

[RedGuevara]

I have noticed this in the use of the words. I thank you for clarifying.

[Tim Redd]

I have noticed this in the use of the words. I thank you for clarifying.

As Marx says the dictatorship of the proletariat (dop) is the required first stage after revolution that practices from each according to ability, to each according to work and this leads to communism. Communism is when we have the abolition of classes & economics of from each according to ability to reach according to need. Why would you not call the stage of the dop anything other socialism to distinguish it from communism? The two while both revolutionary are nevertheless so different that it's better not confuse things by calling them the same thing.

[Tim Cornelis]

In a lower phase of communism, wage labor would exist still, though. Since the "stamp" of capitalist society would still be present in an early socialist one. Production would be organized, commonly, but along the lines of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution." Theoretically, this is to induce productivity and help society along into a communist society where class and state dissolve and money is no longer needed or desired due to the abundance of materials.

No, no, no. There wont be any wage-labour. Wage-labour are relations of production, not a means of remuneration. If there's going to be wage-labour, it necessarily implies class society and capitalism. How do you reconcile communism with social classes, state, and money?

Wage-labour will immediately be replaced by associated labour, anything other than that is not revolutionary and anti-communist.

[helot]

I think it's not just amount but the way you make use of it.

If, for example, your hypothetical work involves living in two cities (by choice), and you want to own two small homes, and with the spirit of the times even offers tourists or passersbys sleep when he's not there - you can argue about it, but it's surely different from having a second house in order to rent it and make money, exploiting the one who rents.

Don't you see though, the very fact of ownership over these homes is the problem regardless of whether or not that particular individual rents one out. Having two residences, however, is another matter.



Anyway, i'd imagine the very concept of property, even personal, would cease. It would serve no use.

[reb]

There is a lot of misconceptions, bullshit and dogmatic bullshit being flung around here. People just love stuffing words into a dead man's mouth.

To the OP, wage-labor is a social relation. It is not a means of distribution as some people here are trying to present. This social relation is a capitalist relation of one group of people who have nothing but their ability to labor to sell and other who own the things for which labor can be applied to to make surplus value. It does not make logical sense for there to exist this wage-labor social-relation in socialism because it would amount to saying that a person both owned and did not own the means of production. For example, you do not pay yourself a wage to use your own hammer in your own home. The logic of these pseudo-marxists would be that you had to pay yourself a wage to put up some shelves in your home.

Also, when people speak of property, we are using a strictly economic sense of the word which refers to the things that we use to partake in social labor. That is, factories and such. It does not refer to your laptop or your house. This is why when marxists call for the abolition of property, this is what is being meant, that the idea of property is gotten rid of when the means of production are made common.




In a lower phase of communism, wage labor would exist still, though. Since the "stamp" of capitalist society would still be present in an early socialist one. Production would be organized, commonly, but along the lines of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution." Theoretically, this is to induce productivity and help society along into a communist society where class and state dissolve and money is no longer needed or desired due to the abundance of materials.

Which is complete garbage as I have said above. Wage-labor is a social relation which exists in class society. You're saying that this lower phase of communism is class society. And you are putting words into a dead man's mouth when you start saying theoretically. If you have all of the aspects of capitalism in the lower phase of communism then how can you call that communism? If I perhaps guess at your logic, it would be because there is a political change. This is idealism at it's finest and is the same sort of idealism that trots and stalinists, and other sorts of leninists, roll around in so that they stink of the filth of bourgeois mentality.

And you go on with this utopian presentation of the future


Two important concepts to the late phase of communism are important: superabundance and free access. "Free access" implies that you wouldn't need a government authority handing things out, but Marx never fleshed this out. This would really be up to the community to organize how things are 'handed out,' as it were. Superabundance would, ostensibly, be ushered in by the automation of drudgery work, which would leave people to good work -- or enjoyable work. Marx explained this as, being a fisherman by day, rearing cattle in the evening and being a critic at dinner (or something like that.) Also in this higher phase, there would be no state.

Now for you, communism isn't just about the proletariat emancipating itself, it is now about abundance. You are adding one clause over another without looking at the material reality of which the proletariat enters the working day. Presumably the lowest phase of communism for you would be equal to the primitive "socialist" accumulation period of the USSR and we all know that this idea is complete bunk.


The lower phase of socialism, while the state still exists, different Marxists have ideas about how a worker-led state would look like.

Putting more words into a corpse. A state can not exist in communism otherwise it would not be communist society. Communist society is defined by it's lack of classes and the material basis for class society to present itself, therefore, it can't have a state. Having to point this out to people on a form dedicated to communists is beyond ridiculous. I would expect this from a stalinist but from a person with a Luxembourg avatar?


As Marx says the dictatorship of the proletariat (dop) is the required first stage after revolution that practices from each according to ability, to each according to work and this leads to communism. Communism is when we have the abolition of classes & economics of from each according to ability to reach according to need. Why would you not call the stage of the dop anything other socialism to distinguish it from communism? The two while both revolutionary are nevertheless so different that it's better not confuse things by calling them the same thing.

He doesn't call that a stage at all. The dotp is the revolution. The political transition which occurs because there is an economic transformation from capitalism to communism. Communist society is a classless society and to get there involves the abolition of capitalism which can only occur within capitalism. To call this socialism, to say that you can do this in a new mode of production called socialism that isn't capitalism or communism is a complete revision of marxism and is again, an appeal to idealism and utopian planning. A proletariat can only exist within capitalist society because it is a creation of capitalism.

[reb]

The way Plato would put it would be that people have everything but own nothing. And Plato is, at times, very Marxist. (Or rather, Marx is, at times, very Platonic)

This is a very strange thing to say as the platonic system, and even Plato himself, would be opposed to Marx and his materialism and vice versa. Perhaps you are confusing Plato for Aristotle or some other materialist.

[Lev Ulyanov]

This is a very strange thing to say as the platonic system, and even Plato himself, would be opposed to Marx and his materialism and vice versa. Perhaps you are confusing Plato for Aristotle or some other materialist.

Plato's politics, although based on a radically different metaphysical viewpoint, is at times very similar to that of Marx when it comes to property and the rule of the wise versus the selfish rule of self-interested and unwise people (one can apply this viewpoint to the rule of the skilled in matters concerning their field, such as the famous quote by Bakunin, "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.")

As you rightly said, a typical interpretation of Plato would go against most of a typical interpretation of Marx. But it's interesting to note the similarities that can sometimes emerge.

I most certainly am not confusing Plato with Aristotle, I assure you :) My field of study is philosophy, after all, and I am fascinated with Plato and all his works, even though there is barely anything that I agree with in Plato.

[helot]

Plato's politics, although based on a radically different metaphysical viewpoint, is at times very similar to that of Marx when it comes to property and the rule of the wise versus the selfish rule of self-interested and unwise people (one can apply this viewpoint to the rule of the skilled in matters concerning their field, such as the famous quote by Bakunin, "Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.")



It seems you're taking from Bakunin something the context doesn't say. The rest of that Bakunin quote reads:





For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism censure.



Just before the 'bootmaker quote' Bakunin also clearly shows his opposition to the "rule of the wise"



Suppose a learned academy, composed of the most illustrious representatives of science; suppose this academy charged with legislation for and the organization of society, and that, inspired only by the purest love of truth, it frames none but laws in absolute harmony with the latest discoveries of science. Well, I maintain, for my part, that such legislation and such organization would be a monstrosity... A scientific body to which had been confided the government of society would soon end by devoting itself no longer to science at all, but to quite another affair; and that affair, as in the case of all established powers, would be its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society confided to its care ever more stupid and consequently more in need of its government and direction.

You see, for Bakunin he recognised that there are people that know about various things to an extent far greater than he did. His situation of deferring to the boot-maker is nothing more than seeking advice from someone with more experience than you in a given field. That is all. It is not rule. It shows the dual meaning of the term 'authority' though that can be summised in having authority (which is a social relation) and being an authorty (which is a specialisation in a given field).




Btw, the only thing by Plato i like is the Gorgias.

[Brotto Rühle]

In Marxist terms, the higher phase of communism would be complete when we enter an age of superabundance and free access, along with the abolition of wage labor, so there would be no reason to have income to have ownership over, say, an article of clothing or whatever item there is.

In a lower phase of communism, wage labor would exist still, though. Since the "stamp" of capitalist society would still be present in an early socialist one. Production would be organized, commonly, but along the lines of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution." Theoretically, this is to induce productivity and help society along into a communist society where class and state dissolve and money is no longer needed or desired due to the abundance of materials.
Wage Labour is a result of capitalist relations of production. It doesn't exist outside of capitalism. I think you should educate yourself on what wages and wage labour is.