Wage slavery and socialism

[Evo2]

As I understand, wage slavery exists in capitalism because workers have to sell themselves at an hourly rate to a capitalist, or die of hunger. The capitalist pockets surplus and gives the worker a wage.


In socialism, a worker has to work or starve and then receives a "work certificate" that he exchanges for food etc.

How is the worker not a slave to the "state" or "society"

I understand that in socialism, there is no capitalist exploiting him/her and pocketing the surplus fruits of labour, yet a form of "wage" slavery seems to exist in socialism.


For example, in the ussr it seems the worker was a wage slave to the state.


I think I'm going wrong somewhere so would be glad if someone could show me where :)

[Red_Banner]

So if he doesn't grow food of his own, should others be forced to give him food?

[argeiphontes]

You're right, in the USSR the worker was a slave to the state. But you can only be a slave to other people, not to work itself, which just has to be done no matter what the economic system you're living under.

It might be helpful to think of true socialism (communism) as more of a tribal organization, but with division of labor and technology. Even though everyone still has to do what it takes to survive, they are free to associate or leave however they want. Nobody is dependent on an alien ruling class to survive; everyone is in the ruling class and you have say in things that affect you, unlike a slave, in proportion to how much they affect you.

There is some curtailment of freedom in modern society (and lack of a check-and-balance) because of the fact that the state of nature is closed to you (you can't just say "fuck it" and leave society to go live in the woods, because there is nowhere to go, and only a few people have that skill set anyway, but that's true right now too). But that's not really slavery either, it's a result of overpopulation and lack of space. (Yeah, all land is "owned" but that's just a legal fiction.)

[Remus Bleys]

Socialism, using the leninist definition, is lower phase communism. Thus "from each according to your ability, to each according to your contribution." So, in socialism (lower phase communism), you get wages, ie your contribution without a subtracted surplus.

This is one of the problems with using moralist arguments for socialism. After condemning the use of all money (in order to establish communism as being "moral"), you'd then have to justify the use of wages in socialism.

Also:
I would assume that this is the same in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that wages exist, but not wage-labour. Taxes would also probably exist in the DotP, but not in socialism.
EDIT: Why the fuck did I mention taxes? Of course taxes wouldn't exist without a state. I gotta stop hanging out with stalinists.


Oh yeah, the thing your going wrong with is using post 1920s USSR as a model for anything.

[reb]

You are right in a way. Wage-labor denotes a very specific social relation, that of labor to capital. It means that a person, or group of people, have to sell their labor to someone who owns the means of production in return for money. The whole edifice of capitalism rests on this social relation where a group of people with nothing to sell but their labor have to do so because they don't own the means of production, otherwise known as property. State "socialism" is not socialism, the step beyond capitalism, because you still have this social relationship and property is not done away with. This is why marxists are against the wage-system and are against the state. The worker remains a wage slave, a proletarian, in state "socialism".

Anyone arguing that you can have wage-labor without capital do not know anything about either marxism or capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Anyone arguing that you can have wage-labor without capital do not know anything about either marxism or capitalism.
What about the historical existence of wage labor in pre-capitalist societies?

[reb]

What about the historical existence of wage labor in pre-capitalist societies?

Capitalism is a generalized system where wage-labor generalized, according to our old friend Engels. Previous examples of wage-labor have only been a limited divergence from the norm. I can not recall anywhere in pre-capitalism where wage-labor was normal. I am a Marxist and I deal with capitalism for the most part. Previously in pre-capitalist Europe, where markets and wage-labor existed, as well with the associated commodity production, exclusively, it represented a breakdown in the old social order. But you are going to need to ask someone else if you want a broader answer.

[Thirsty Crow]

Capitalism is a generalized system where wage-labor generalized, according to our old friend Engels. Previous examples of wage-labor have only been a limited divergence from the norm. I can not recall anywhere in pre-capitalism where wage-labor was normal. I am a Marxist and I deal with capitalism for the most part. Previously in pre-capitalist Europe, where markets and wage-labor existed, as well with the associated commodity production, exclusively, it represented a breakdown in the old social order. But you are going to need to ask someone else if you want a broader answer.
A few questions:

1) what does generalization actually imply? The fact that most direct producers do so within the wage labor-capital relation or something else? Is there a subsidiary non-quantitative effect?

2) in what way is it possible to claim the limited divergence from the norm? If I recall correctly, Jairus Banaji argues that wage labor was quite widespread in Roman antiquity for instance - so much that the number of producers who worked as wage earners at one time wasn't that far off from the number of slaves. And this practice was more or less stable, but again if I recall correctly, the numbers of wage workers actually fluctuated

I'm asking these questions because I believe that a sharp historical understanding of previous modes of exploitation is beneficial for the sharpening of our theoretical tools and conceptual apparatuses which are used to deal with modern capitalism. In no way I disagree with your approach or even contentions, actually.