Communism and equal pay

[Captain Red]

When ever I'm in an argument with a anti-communist they always say that "in communism everyone has the same salary and than you don't have any reason to work hard and that it's unfair that a janitor and a doctor should have the same pay" Why do anti-communists think this? I have never heard that Marx or Engels say that you should have equal salary for everyone in fact in the communist Manifesto it says that in most advanced countries "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax" should be implemented and you cant have progressive taxes if everyone has equal salary? So why do they think this? Is it just a myth used by right-wing propaganda?

[ckaihatsu]

When ever I'm in an argument with a anti-communist they always say that "in communism everyone has the same salary and than you don't have any reason to work hard and that it's unfair that a janitor and a doctor should have the same pay" Why do anti-communists think this?


I, for one, have found this to be a "soft spot" in revolutionary theory, and I've also taken steps to provide a solution to this overall issue -- more on this later.

To answer your question, there are two components: Why the anti-communist is taking this tack, and how revolutionary theory can potentially address it.

First, I think it's important to understand that the choice of the 'doctor' profession in the argument is *very* loaded, and here's why:





You're [...] having to use a very *specialized* instance of a technical procedure, one that is particular to a person's life, is individually physically exacting, and is time-sensitive. Outside of the procedure of surgery, many more *regular* technical processes are *non*-life-sensitive, *non*-individual-specific, and *non*-time-sensitive.


In other words, the overwhelmingly vast majority of occupations in society -- and presumably so in a *post*-capitalist context as well -- would not be so *delicate* and *imperative* as the procedure of surgery is / deemed to be.

(There are also those who would take issue with the medical *strategy* of surgery, but that whole discussion is outside the scope of this political topic.)

Also:

The doctor argument against communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/doctor-argument-against-t147012/index.html


That said, though, we'd be remiss in our position if we *didn't* take the 'doctor' argument seriously in its essence -- how *could* a post-capitalist society handle wide-ranging variations in the type of work that people do, in terms of a socially acceptable access to social production?

I happen to take this question seriously because the implications are that [1] maybe no one would want to make extra efforts for *anything* if they see no follow-through from anyone else in that direction, either. This would mean that the entire society, while being quite equitable, would not be able to realize any kind of *growth*, because no one has any societal incentive towards higher-level efforts -- stagnation would prevail.

And, [2] if a post-capitalist social order *did* have varying rates of compensation based on profession, what would prevent the higher earners from organizing on the basis of their increased material position, to re-establish an elitist technocratic bureaucratic order?

So, the *short answer* here -- which is certainly adequate from an 'internal' point of view -- is that, once the bourgeoisie is overthrown, a workers' society would have a common interest in quickly pushing through to a mode of *full automation* so that the whole notion of discrete professions would simply be anachronistic and therefore moot.

However, for the sake of argument -- since we are currently living in a world of commodity-based mindsets -- it may be useful to address the question of varying occupations, and their respective compensations, in a more tangible way, *without* resorting to commodity-type valuations of labor and materials (assets, resources, and products).

I'll leave off at this point and invite you, and/or the reader, to take a look at my blog entry for an introduction to a particular framework I developed for this kind of occasion.





I have never heard that Marx or Engels say that you should have equal salary for everyone in fact in the communist Manifesto it says that in most advanced countries "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax" should be implemented and you cant have progressive taxes if everyone has equal salary? So why do they think this? Is it just a myth used by right-wing propaganda?


I'm only going to address this by saying that I find the whole notion of material exchanges (including labor-for-material-rewards) to be un-communistic and ultimately unwieldy -- that's why I think this particular aspect of revolutionary theory has been a weak spot for the orthodox approach.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

When ever I'm in an argument with a anti-communist they always say that "in communism everyone has the same salary and than you don't have any reason to work hard and that it's unfair that a janitor and a doctor should have the same pay"

A custodial engineer makes roughly 25 to 29k in the US.

By way of comparison, I could become a janitor (ew) and make more money than say a teacher; so what? I could be a bingo manager and make 56k. Matter of fact, I could literally collect dirt aka being a "soil conservationist," and make the same as an staff RN. The argument kind of falls flat on it's face. I think we should abolish the wage system and currency all together anyways.

[ckaihatsu]

I think we should abolish the wage system and currency all together anyways.


To play devil's advocate here, the argument in response to 'abolish the wage system' would be "How do we collectively value work that's more hazardous or difficult to do, on an egalitarian basis?" -- in other words, it's back to the 'doctor' argument.

And if currency is abolished I would think that *localism* would prevail, since there would be no basis for valuing or organizing one locality's output in relation to another's.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

To play devil's advocate here, the argument in response to 'abolish the wage system' would be "How do we collectively value work that's more hazardous or difficult to do, on an egalitarian basis?" -- in other words, it's back to the 'doctor' argument.

Why do we need to, to begin with?


And if currency is abolished I would think that *localism* would prevail, since there would be no basis for valuing or organizing one locality's output in relation to another's.

I see this as being a scientific, technical, logistical, engineering, etc. problem as opposed to an economic one, to a degree. I think a system based upon the analysis of consumption-production trends and patterns, could easily be constructed in terms of "filling the void," (as it were) of currency and it's associated utility.

[ckaihatsu]

"How do we collectively value work that's more hazardous or difficult to do, on an egalitarian basis?"





Why do we need to, to begin with?


Because:





[W]e'd be remiss in our position if we *didn't* take the 'doctor' argument seriously in its essence -- how *could* a post-capitalist society handle wide-ranging variations in the type of work that people do, in terms of a socially acceptable access to social production?

I happen to take this question seriously because the implications are that [1] maybe no one would want to make extra efforts for *anything* if they see no follow-through from anyone else in that direction, either. This would mean that the entire society, while being quite equitable, would not be able to realize any kind of *growth*, because no one has any societal incentive towards higher-level efforts -- stagnation would prevail.


---





And if currency is abolished I would think that *localism* would prevail, since there would be no basis for valuing or organizing one locality's output in relation to another's.





I see this as being a scientific, technical, logistical, engineering, etc. problem as opposed to an economic one, to a degree. I think a system based upon the analysis of consumption-production trends and patterns, could easily be constructed in terms of "filling the void," (as it were) of currency and it's associated utility.


Sure, and I basically agree here -- but, to take a 'worst case' scenario into consideration, what would prevent a post-capitalist *communal-separatist* ethos from prevailing, if no common economic ground can be found among the localist syndicalist productive entities -- ?

[Comrade #138672]

The doctor vs janitor problem is of secondary importance [to communists]. It is a misleading argument against communism, because it assumes that wage labor and scarcity still exist in communism, and that the primary antagonism in capitalism is the antagonism between skilled workers and unskilled workers instead of between capitalists and workers.

[newdayrising]

The funniest part of this argument is that people assume that the hardest working jobs are paid better than the easy ones.
As if they lived in a world where salaries are calculated by a formula consisting of physical + mental stress x hours, and millionairs are all former miners and toilet cleaners who worked overtime.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

The funniest part of this argument is that people assume that the hardest working jobs are paid better than the easy ones.
As if they lived in a world where salaries are calculated by a formula consisting of physical + mental stress x hours, and millionairs are all former miners and toilet cleaners who worked overtime.
You forgot responsibility and the risk taking. The main argument of employers.

[Skyhilist]

Well first of all, most low-paying jobs currently have much more utility than most high-paying jobs in society. Second of all, think about it. Think of young, 4 year old kids who have some grand dream to be something like an astronaut or a doctor when they grow up. If you ask them why, they're never going to say "because of the money", they're going to tell you that it's because they enjoy such professions. That's the way humans are intrinsically are: the only thing that changes that in the first place is the existence of wage labor. At any rate, if I had a choice between being a herpetologist and digging ditches, I'd still choose being a herpetologist because it's a far more enjoyable job.

Anyways though, here's what I propose: shared labor. Require each person to have 2-3 jobs and assign a point value to each job based on it's importance to society and its natural desirability. The 2-3 jobs you work can be of your choosing but must add up to a certain point value. That way, if there aren't enough people who want to do a job, just raise that jobs point value and more people will be willing to do it. Also, hours at jobs could be worked out democratically, amongst the workers and would be ideally based on ability.

[ckaihatsu]

Anyways though, here's what I propose: shared labor. Require each person to have 2-3 jobs and assign a point value to each job based on it's importance to society and its natural desirability. The 2-3 jobs you work can be of your choosing but must add up to a certain point value. That way, if there aren't enough people who want to do a job, just raise that jobs point value and more people will be willing to do it. Also, hours at jobs could be worked out democratically, amongst the workers and would be ideally based on ability.


Okay, just to make the most of the little forehead horns, arrow-pointy tail, and red pitchfork I bought -- let me have at this one....

The problem with any kind of currency-or-points-for-material-rewards system is that such a method necessary implies *exchanges*, and this familiar practice should be rendered *superfluous* by a full proletarian control of social production.

You'll also get the 'bureaucratic collectivism' argument, where a re-separation into an administrative elite (over the points system) and everybody-else, will be an eventuality.

Just sayin....

[human strike]

Communism doesn't mean equal pay since communism is the movement that abolishes work and exchange.

[Bala Perdida]

People always assume that humans always have to do jobs. If you see how technology is advancing, you can also see how rapidly technology is replacing a human work force. If we use the technology to it's fullest extent and keep expanding on it, then there will be less for humans to do. The jobs that are available could then be cut down to as little as an hour a day depending on the population size. As for inventions and technological innovation, there is no money incentive for that. Studies show that innovation and creativity decreases when inventors are promised money.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Sure, and I basically agree here -- but, to take a 'worst case' scenario into consideration, what would prevent a post-capitalist *communal-separatist* ethos from prevailing, if no common economic ground can be found among the localist syndicalist productive entities -- ?

I'll address the other stuff later but your phrasing in the above struck me as being somewhat odd. I am operating under the assumption that it would be a post-capitalist global economy or rather eco-system, if you will which would assume an almost uniform commonality in terms of economic efficiency of productive entities rather than a communal separatist collective(s) occupying some forestry(ies). I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not keen on and am confused by this "anarchy in one country," kind of thing your phrasing seems to imply (at least to me anyway). Perhaps I'm being silly and or getting confused. I'm also, not to big into syndicalism, from what I understand.


People always assume that humans always have to do jobs. If you see how technology is advancing, you can also see how rapidly technology is replacing a human work force. If we use the technology to it's fullest extent and keep expanding on it, then there will be less for humans to do. The jobs that are available could then be cut down to as little as an hour a day depending on the population size. As for inventions and technological innovation, there is no money incentive for that. Studies show that innovation and creativity decreases when inventors are promised money.

Einstein worked in a patent office, for example. Tesla dug ditches, etc. etc.

Could you cite your sources as far as those studies go?

[human strike]

The equal pay strawman is a strange anti-communist argument since capitalism as a general rule pays the most socially useful work the least, if at all.

[Skyhilist]

Okay, just to make the most of the little forehead horns, arrow-pointy tail, and red pitchfork I bought -- let me have at this one....

The problem with any kind of currency-or-points-for-material-rewards system is that such a method necessary implies *exchanges*, and this familiar practice should be rendered *superfluous* by a full proletarian control of social production.

You'll also get the 'bureaucratic collectivism' argument, where a re-separation into an administrative elite (over the points system) and everybody-else, will be an eventuality.

Just sayin....

You've only heard how I'd like labor allocated though, not resources. I don't it should be "the more work you do, the more resources you get", I think it should be "Work out with your employees how much you can reasonably work. Each person who works to more or less their best ability gets free access to all post-scarce resources and equal access to resources that are still scarce but that they want." Oh also and resources that people actually need (and don't just want) I think should be distributed by need. So in other words no one who works to their best ability has more than anyone else who does the same. Basically this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/debit-cards-under-t182867/index.html?t=182867

Anyways, that should take care of the possibility of inequality arising although I admit it's not perfect - no system is.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

How are Janitors not worth large payrolls? Without a cleaning corps for densely inhabited regions, disease would spread like the dickens. For an example of what I speak of, check out the environment of any major city in developing countries, e.g. Lagos or Port Morseby. Plenty of medical experts for those who have the money, but not enough cleaners for everybody else (most of whom live in absolute squalor).

City cleaners in ancient Aztec society were exceedingly affluent. In fact, to be a 'janitor' in the city of Tenochtitlan was considered to be an honour, because their ability to maintain and clean the city streets was valued.

[helot]

Id really like people who come out with this argument to take some time to think about why X job has Y wage. It's pretty apparent that differences in wages has nothing to do with how difficult, how unpleasant and how back-breaking a particular job is nor its social utility. If there was a correlation then i'm pretty sure the vast majority of women around the globe would be filthy rich. The reason the engineer, the doctor, the scientist etc can gain a higher wage is more to do with a monopoly of education or a monopoly of industry than anything inherent in the task at hand.


All such wage theories have been thought up after the event to justify injustices.

[Bala Perdida]

Einstein worked in a patent office, for example. Tesla dug ditches, etc. etc.

Could you cite your sources as far as those studies go?
I was talking about being paid to invent, not paid while inventing. Sorry I was unclear. I read the statistics in an article that I could look for if you want later, but I can give an example. Like Apple, they get paid to invent and innovate. Apple releases products every year with slight changes and they get paid for it, this is true of any company that produces technology on a large scale. We dont get many actual innovative products from these companies. People like Tesla, and today Jacque Fresco, have made various invention for experimenting, innovation, and many other reasons but not profit.

[Slavic]

I don't think anyone here is trying to say that a janitor's social contribution to society is any less then that of a doctor. I think the issue here, and one that I think ckaihatsu is trying to raise, is that the skills required to perform the job of doctor and exceedingly more difficult to acquire and hone. This then brings about the issue in which why would anyone wish to put in the effort to become a doctor in a post-capital society if being a janitor will bring about all your material needs.

I am still not entirely sure what needs to be done to ensure that a post-capital society has sufficient doctors and other professions which requires years of study. I think that ration priority could be utilized to fill necessary societal work. Mind you this doesn't have to be skill intensive jobs, I am sure that there would need to be an incentive for hazardous jobs that do not require years of training.

[Sabot Cat]

Anti-communists think communism means, "the government takes all of the resources and puts everyone on equal welfare", which is a ridiculous straw man but nonetheless it exists if interrogating a couple anti-communists on the subject is evidence enough. They usually cite "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and link it with the free rider problem.

However, Marx explains it much better, and I'll give the quotes in full:

"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."

That is, the entire system of resource distribution in a socialist society relies upon the value of labor, thus relating it back to the labor theory of value.

However, the "janitor/doctor" dichotomy is still present. How do we differentiate between various professions, some of which require more education than others, or are more unpleasant and thus require more motivation? How would we give a doctor "more" in labor vouchers for the same amount of labor as a janitor?

There is also the question of how we could even provide more compensation to scarcer jobs if varying compensation is being decided through democratic assembly of autonomous workers. Wouldn't a majority pursuing their own self-interest make more common jobs better paying than other kinds? This would be problematic because less common jobs aren't necessarily less needed, but may be more unpleasant, more technically difficult or otherwise require infrequently possessed skills.

I suppose the community could realize that you need to allow heart surgeons to receive more resources than most because they have a technically difficult job, but there are times when it's hard to tell that a job is scarce and a worker with it needs to be compensated more to hold that position. A democratic assembly of autonomous workers that possesses a hospital may have vacancies for surgeons because they aren't being compensated in resources sufficient for the difficulty of that profession, and thus they adjust the compensation until a person is willing to work with them. Thus, these potentially thorny problems should be self-correcting, if there is a way to give more resources to someone for the same amount of labor without currency.

But then we get to the problem of "what if some workers suck at certain jobs?" What if instead of the above solution, the hospital just sticks an inexperienced person into the surgeon slot? What if there's an autonomous group of plumbers who aren't as good as they could be at their jobs, but there's no way for those utilizing their services to displace them with better plumbers because they own their means of production? How would you remove anyone that's not suited for that particularly profession for the greater good of the community?

There are several ways to approach this problem too:

Perhaps instead of just autonomous workers' organization as in communes or industrial unions, one could have region-based direct democracies wherein the entire community votes as people who want certain services performed well and certain products made right. They would control the means of production as a sufficiently large aggregate to allow job transfers and displacement of individual workers.

For the above example of terrible plumbers, perhaps certain people who procure their services could lodge their complaints to the delegates of the city council. The delegates could contact certain people within the city and provisionally monitor their households while they test the service providers who have been criticized. Once verifying the complaints, the city council could post requests in the city for replacements while notifying the current plumbers that the city's plumbing equipment is going to be transferred to a different group and that they need to apply for a transfer to another job. There could be some sort of job aptitude test to help with this, and the community would be able to offer free higher education for any job they might want other than plumbing. The city council or provincial/state legislature (subject to have their decisions overturned by referendum) could also be the ones to allocate resources and services according to the scarcity or difficulty of certain jobs.

Sorry for rambling, but there are some interesting questions embedded in these statements that are kind of idiotic on the surface, and I wanted to examine them thoroughly.

[helot]

I don't think anyone here is trying to say that a janitor's social contribution to society is any less then that of a doctor. I think the issue here, and one that I think ckaihatsu is trying to raise, is that the skills required to perform the job of doctor and exceedingly more difficult to acquire and hone. This then brings about the issue in which why would anyone wish to put in the effort to become a doctor in a post-capital society if being a janitor will bring about all your material needs.

I am still not entirely sure what needs to be done to ensure that a post-capital society has sufficient doctors and other professions which requires years of study. I think that ration priority could be utilized to fill necessary societal work. Mind you this doesn't have to be skill intensive jobs, I am sure that there would need to be an incentive for hazardous jobs that do not require years of training.



Don't you see that it's a thoroughly bourgeois perspective? Where's the evidence that you need to compel people to do socially necessary tasks? Is not necessity compulsion enough? You're using the exact same methods used to justify the wages system! "Incentivise, incentivise" it's bullshit now and it'll be bullshit then. Higher wages would come through a monopoly of education and industry.

[Slavic]

Where's the evidence that you need to compel people to do socially necessary tasks?

Where is the evidence that you don't need to compel people? I see this arguement thrown around a lot by socialist but it stinks of idealism and utopianism. I am extremely skeptical that a post-capital society will be able to fill all of its necessary jobs through the good will of the people alone.

[Comrade #138672]

Where is the evidence that you don't need to compel people? I see this arguement thrown around a lot by socialist but it stinks of idealism and utopianism. I am extremely skeptical that a post-capital society will be able to fill all of its necessary jobs through the good will of the people alone.If they don't, then it will hurt everyone. If nobody works performs any activities, then everybody will die. This is the ultimate "incentive".

I don't think it is necessarily utopian to think that all necessary jobs activities will be performed in this way. The possibility of it is very real. The current capitalist society, despite being very alienated, already shows a high level of socialization. It is what allows for socialism in the first place. Many people today think of "altruism" as a good thing. What is it anyway? I think it's nothing more than alienated socialization. In a future socialist society, the distinction between "egoism" and "altruism" will disappear, as the strong and far-reaching interdependence is acknowledged and embraced fully, in order to benefit us all.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Where is the evidence that you don't need to compel people? I see this arguement thrown around a lot by socialist but it stinks of idealism and utopianism. I am extremely skeptical that a post-capital society will be able to fill all of its necessary jobs through the good will of the people alone.


If they don't, then it will hurt everyone. If nobody works, then everybody will die. This is the ultimate incentive.

Communism means the end of wage-labour and the end of work. It doesn't mean the end of activity. Human production and reproduction will happen in all human societies, because that is what the human is - social activities. It's not a question of incentives, but a question of how this activity is organised (work and wage labour) and for what purpose (capital vs. "real needs").

[ckaihatsu]

Sure, and I basically agree here -- but, to take a 'worst case' scenario into consideration, what would prevent a post-capitalist *communal-separatist* ethos from prevailing, if no common economic ground can be found among the localist syndicalist productive entities -- ?





I'll address the other stuff later but your phrasing in the above struck me as being somewhat odd. I am operating under the assumption that it would be a post-capitalist global economy or rather eco-system, if you will which would assume an almost uniform commonality in terms of economic efficiency of productive entities rather than a communal separatist collective(s) occupying some forestry(ies). I guess what I'm saying is, I'm not keen on and am confused by this "anarchy in one country," kind of thing your phrasing seems to imply (at least to me anyway). Perhaps I'm being silly and or getting confused. I'm also, not to big into syndicalism, from what I understand.


Yeah, well, I'm glad to hear that your political mindset doesn't go in a separatist direction -- we can only deal with potential scenarios here, so that's all *I'm* going by, anyway....

I'm using the 'worst case' scenario to reiterate the question of this thread's topic:

How would the rewards of social production be distributed equitably in a communist-type system, and what would that system be, exactly, particularly in regards to labor -- ?

And *you're* saying: How would we be able to 'assume a post-capitalist global economy or eco-system with an almost uniform commonality in terms of economic efficiency of productive entities' -- ?

What I'm *hearing* here is that everyone would have roughly the same *technologies*, so no area of the globe would be 'backwards'.

I agree, and I think this is fair to go by, according to 'permanent revolution'.

I'll go ahead and drop the other shoe here, to bring forth the creation I developed for this kind of discussion -- excerpts follow, below, and I think they're congruent with what you've laid-out....





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

http://tinyurl.com/ygybheg




Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property




Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

[ckaihatsu]

Okay, just to make the most of the little forehead horns, arrow-pointy tail, and red pitchfork I bought -- let me have at this one....

The problem with any kind of currency-or-points-for-material-rewards system is that such a method necessary implies *exchanges*, and this familiar practice should be rendered *superfluous* by a full proletarian control of social production.

You'll also get the 'bureaucratic collectivism' argument, where a re-separation into an administrative elite (over the points system) and everybody-else, will be an eventuality.

Just sayin....





You've only heard how I'd like labor allocated though, not resources. I don't it should be "the more work you do, the more resources you get", I think it should be "Work out with your employees how much you can reasonably work. Each person who works to more or less their best ability gets free access to all post-scarce resources and equal access to resources that are still scarce but that they want." Oh also and resources that people actually need (and don't just want) I think should be distributed by need. So in other words no one who works to their best ability has more than anyone else who does the same. Basically this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/debit-cards-under-t182867/index.html?t=182867

Anyways, that should take care of the possibility of inequality arising although I admit it's not perfect - no system is.


This approach reminds me of the 'threshold' standard that was brought up half a year ago -- the problem with focusing on *individual* inputs is that it doesn't take *leveraged productivity* into account -- people could very well end up producing ridiculous surpluses by working to their own abilities, with that labor detached from what quantities people actually *want*.





One approach / method for the use of labor notes indexes its use to a determined standard of 'socially necessary labor time', which then serves as a defined 'threshold' -- anyone earning amounts of labor notes *below* the threshold would receive respective proportions thereof of the social production 'staple' deemed 'socially necessary'.

Then, once *above* the threshold, one would be able to freely access any and *all* social production, as for luxury goods produced, etc.


The Free-Rider Problem in Communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2488020&postcount=33


I happen to be critical of this approach since it -- conventionally -- implicitly assumes a linking / ratioing of labor time (for production) to *consumption* needs and wants.

This is as bad as anything a right-winger would come up with since this formulation ignores the material leveraging of mass production, which multiplies labor effort immensely as compared to discrete needs for basic 'staple' consumption. We should eschew and not-fall for any model that scrutinizes, or measures, according to raw work inputs, since such an approach "hides" the productivity *resulting* from those leveraged work inputs -- instead preferring to focus on the work effort alone, of whatever amount, in a very individuating and moralistic way.

[reb]

When ever I'm in an argument with a anti-communist they always say that "in communism everyone has the same salary and than you don't have any reason to work hard and that it's unfair that a janitor and a doctor should have the same pay" Why do anti-communists think this?

They think this because this is the schoolyard definition of communism that you get in bourgeois countries, something which isn't helped by stalinists who repeat the same idiotic social democratic slogans and bourgeois degenerated communism.


I have never heard that Marx or Engels say that you should have equal salary for everyone in fact in the communist Manifesto it says that in most advanced countries "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax" should be implemented and you cant have progressive taxes if everyone has equal salary? So why do they think this? Is it just a myth used by right-wing propaganda?

No, that is not describing communist society. It is reformist steps that could be taken under capital at the time in Germany. In communist society, no one gets "paid" anything and no one has a salary. The manifesto, especially this part, is really out of date and does not represent the real radical nature of communism. Contrast this with the idea in Value, Price and Profit that the working class should strive for an abolition of the wage-system.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't think anyone here is trying to say that a janitor's social contribution to society is any less then that of a doctor. I think the issue here, and one that I think ckaihatsu is trying to raise, is that the skills required to perform the job of doctor and exceedingly more difficult to acquire and hone. This then brings about the issue in which why would anyone wish to put in the effort to become a doctor in a post-capital society if being a janitor will bring about all your material needs.


Yes.





I am still not entirely sure what needs to be done to ensure that a post-capital society has sufficient doctors and other professions which requires years of study. I think that ration priority could be utilized to fill necessary societal work. Mind you this doesn't have to be skill intensive jobs, I am sure that there would need to be an incentive for hazardous jobs that do not require years of training.


You may want to elaborate more on 'ration priority' -- at face value it sounds a lot like 'staple threshold', and also is almost at the point of labor-for-material-exchanges, which is problematic.

I'll continue to throw pertinent parts of my model into the mix here, and will note that the core of the approach is to *disconnect* liberated labor from material rewards:





Once we relieve ourselves of the need for abstract 'pricing', we can instead keep the realms of liberated-labor and material-fulfillments *separate*, since communism is supposed to be 'direct distribution' and 'free access', anyway, by definition.

[ckaihatsu]

However, the "janitor/doctor" dichotomy is still present. How do we differentiate between various professions, some of which require more education than others, or are more unpleasant and thus require more motivation? How would we give a doctor "more" in labor vouchers for the same amount of labor as a janitor?

There is also the question of how we could even provide more compensation to scarcer jobs if varying compensation is being decided through democratic assembly of autonomous workers. Wouldn't a majority pursuing their own self-interest make more common jobs better paying than other kinds? This would be problematic because less common jobs aren't necessarily less needed, but may be more unpleasant, more technically difficult or otherwise require infrequently possessed skills.


Yep -- I've addressed this issue in the 'communist supply & demand' model:





Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived




Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174





But then we get to the problem of "what if some workers suck at certain jobs?"


These days there's Yelp, etc.

[Sabot Cat]

Yep -- I've addressed this issue in the 'communist supply & demand' model:

But this would be reliant upon people knowing how difficult or dangerous a job is as a community, which is difficult because no one person typically possesses sufficient experience to appraise them all relative to one another. Some jobs are harder (or rarely easier) than people may think.

Or you would be asking someone how much they should be compensated for, or how much their neighbors should be compensated for, which can be motivated by reasons outside of objective appraisals of difficulty or hazard.

I suppose you could calculate say, the amount of fatalities and then make that a multiplier for compensation, but then this would run the risk of incentivizing accidents and the deaths of one's co-workers for one's self. The same is true of adjusting them on the basis of years invested in education, because curriculum could be lengthened so those within that field can be paid more.

I believe consumer appraisals and thorough vetting thereof are a much better basis for these multipliers than surveys among the service providers or producers. Your proposals for communist administration are pretty akin to my own already though.


These days there's Yelp, etc.

I think you misread my question by not taking in the surrounding context.

[ckaihatsu]

But this would be reliant upon people knowing how difficult or dangerous a job is as a community, which is difficult because no one person typically possesses sufficient experience to appraise them all relative to one another. Some jobs are harder (or rarely easier) than people may think.


I'll elaborate on this:





In other words, exit surveys at every formally defined work role would tally people's estimations of it, on a standardized scale -- like '1 through 10'. The average scale for any given formal work role -- '1 through 10' -- would be the number that's *multiplied* to any actual labor hours performed, by anyone, to determine the *rate of labor credits* handed-over per labor hour for that respective labor role.

So, for example, if 1,000 workers at 'tuna fish harvesting' responded with an average of '6' for that work role, then that work role would have a multiplier of 6 for every labor hour, for labor credits, meaning that 6 labor credits would have to be handed over for every labor hour worked for 'tuna fish harvesting'.





Or you would be asking someone how much they should be compensated for, or how much their neighbors should be compensated for, which can be motivated by reasons outside of objective appraisals of difficulty or hazard.


It could be called 'inter-subjective'.





I suppose you could calculate say, the amount of fatalities and then make that a multiplier for compensation, but then this would run the risk of incentivizing accidents and the deaths of one's co-workers for one's self.


No, I would eschew the actuarial statistics approach.





The same is true of adjusting them on the basis of years invested in education, because curriculum could be lengthened so those within that field can be paid more.


Right -- I would avoid trying to find just the *right* objective (statistical) factors to include.





I believe consumer appraisals and thorough vetting thereof are a much better basis for these multipliers than surveys among the service providers or producers.


*Consumer*-based appraisals -- ??

Wouldn't we want to be oriented to the liberated laborers themselves -- ?





Your proposals for communist administration are pretty akin to my own already though.


Would you care to elaborate on this?





I think you misread my question by not taking in the surrounding context.


Please elaborate here.

[Sabot Cat]

I'll elaborate on this:

It could be called 'inter-subjective'.

My point is that there is nothing to prevent everyone from inflating these ratings to get paid more, or not being able to accurately rate it because they don't work much in other jobs or have a skill set that makes some jobs more difficult than others for themselves but not necessarily other people, or cultural perceptions of that job molding their reactions to it.





*Consumer*-based appraisals -- ??

Wouldn't we want to be oriented to the liberated laborers themselves -- ?


All consumers would be liberated laborers, actually. So... yes.



Would you care to elaborate on this?


"communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]"

That's pretty much what I'm saying.


Please elaborate here.

Basically, my problem is that liberated laborers could persist in a job even if they aren't good at it, thus serving as a detriment to the community, and there would be no real way to displace them for someone who's better at it because they own their means of production. Your response was a non-sequitur.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

The manifesto, especially this part, is really out of date and does not represent the real radical nature of communism.

Not that I disagree with you.
But is this your opinion or the general opinion of most communists? and is there any 'figure of authority' on Communism agreeing with you?

[ckaihatsu]

My point is that there is nothing to prevent everyone from inflating these ratings to get paid more, or not being able to accurately rate it because they don't work much in other jobs or have a skill set that makes some jobs more difficult than others for themselves but not necessarily other people, or cultural perceptions of that job molding their reactions to it.


Yeah, I hear ya, and it's a good point, but I like to think that the law of large numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers) might apply here since we're talking about a total population of billions of people. Also, depending on the prevailing ethos of the society this 'multiplier index' could be socially considered to be rather sacrosanct -- a fine civic duty that one shouldn't mess around with.





All consumers would be liberated laborers, actually. So... yes.


Okay.





Basically, my problem is that liberated laborers could persist in a job even if they aren't good at it, thus serving as a detriment to the community, and there would be no real way to displace them for someone who's better at it because they own their means of production. Your response was a non-sequitur.


Okay, no prob -- here's how I account for it in the model:





Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions


So this means that formal mass demand is the broadest population, with a subset of labor-credit-possessing liberated laborers within it. Then there would be those who undertake the responsibility and efforts to provide formal, spelled-out administrative functions and logistics for all of the above -- the 'proponents'.

While the proponents' policy package would 'budget' a certain number of labor credits (either currently possessed by interested liberated laborers or sourced as publicly-displayed debt), the *actual persons* chosen for participation, per the policy package, would be entirely up to those in possession of labor credits, in the proportion of labor credits that they have.

(So if the budget allocated is 5 million labor credits, and there are to be 5,000 people brought on, then that's 1,000 labor credits allocated for each liberated laborer. Anyone supplying 1,000 labor credits would be able to personally select exactly who that one person is, since it's the funder's own labor credits that will be passed on to that individual.)





Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality


Those with accumulated labor credits who agree to be (co-)funders are thus directly invested in the project, and would not want to part with their labor credits unless the incoming liberated laborers have fulfilled their work obligations as specified in the policy package.

Regular social organization among the funders and proponents -- in an ongoing feedback loop with mass demand -- would further strengthen the general oversight for that project or production run.

Finally, regular social circles of fairly active liberated laborers would 'know their own', and reputations would develop for everyone, respectively, over time.

[Skyhilist]

This approach reminds me of the 'threshold' standard that was brought up half a year ago -- the problem with focusing on *individual* inputs is that it doesn't take *leveraged productivity* into account -- people could very well end up producing ridiculous surpluses by working to their own abilities, with that labor detached from what quantities people actually *want*.

I've never seen it as a matter of "just work as hard as you can and churn out as much product as you can" - in fact I'm by no means productivist. I imagine that communities could likely model their consumption and then tell workforces how much they needed. Then the workforces would negotiate how much each would produce (e.g. the larger steel plant produces most of the steel that's needed), and the workers within the different workplaces work out hours amongst themselves to meet (but not exceed) the needs of society. Unnecessary surplus would likely have a negative ecological impact and I certainly wouldn't want that.

But also, if workers barely have to do any work to produce the needs of society for a certain industry, then I imagine the "point value" of that job might be lowered so there wouldn't be tons of unnecessary workers flocking to that job. And again, the "point values" of jobs aren't to determine how much stuff a person is allowed to consume (everyone working as needed should have the same access I think), but to make it so that all jobs that need to get done have the workers necessary to fulfill them, each worker having to work a certain number of points in jobs of their choosing.

[reb]

Not that I disagree with you.
But is this your opinion or the general opinion of most communists? and is there any 'figure of authority' on Communism agreeing with you?

To your first question, it is my general opinion that most people who call themselves communists, or the left in more broad terms, hold these un-marxian views. Be it equal pay, pay in the full value of work, money, commodity production or classes in communism. As to your second question, I have no idea what you are asking me.

[Zukunftsmusik]

As to your second question, I have no idea what you are asking me.

I think what he means to ask is if there are any theorists who hold (y)our opinions.

[reb]

I think what he means to ask is if there are any theorists who hold (y)our opinions.

That the left in general holds shitty utopian views or who holds on to the idea that the objective movement of the proletariat in it's struggle with capital leads to communism without a transitional society? If it's the latter then there is a whole host of people and to begin with, a non dogmatic reading of Marx would be the starting point, then a general reading of those on the communist left and also Andrew Kliman and co. of the marxist-humanist institute.

[Red Shaker]

Communism is not for equal pay, but rather for abolishing the wage system all together. Distribution is based on need, not the work you do as in capitalist society. Workers will develop skills based on their commitment to build a new society. Inculcating these values into workers' heads is an important part of building a communist movement.

[Ritzy Cat]

People always assume that humans always have to do jobs. If you see how technology is advancing, you can also see how rapidly technology is replacing a human work force. If we use the technology to it's fullest extent and keep expanding on it, then there will be less for humans to do. The jobs that are available could then be cut down to as little as an hour a day depending on the population size. As for inventions and technological innovation, there is no money incentive for that. Studies show that innovation and creativity decreases when inventors are promised money.

Is this true? I'd like to see the studies that show this, where can I find them? (I'm not attacking you I'd just like to have these stats for my cappie-commie debates)

[ckaihatsu]

I've never seen it as a matter of "just work as hard as you can and churn out as much product as you can" - in fact I'm by no means productivist.


Okay.





I imagine that communities could likely model their consumption and then tell workforces how much they needed. Then the workforces would negotiate how much each would produce (e.g. the larger steel plant produces most of the steel that's needed), and the workers within the different workplaces work out hours amongst themselves to meet (but not exceed) the needs of society. Unnecessary surplus would likely have a negative ecological impact and I certainly wouldn't want that.


Yep -- I have no problems with this overall approach.





But also, if workers barely have to do any work to produce the needs of society for a certain industry, then I imagine the "point value" of that job might be lowered so there wouldn't be tons of unnecessary workers flocking to that job. And again, the "point values" of jobs aren't to determine how much stuff a person is allowed to consume (everyone working as needed should have the same access I think), but to make it so that all jobs that need to get done have the workers necessary to fulfill them, each worker having to work a certain number of points in jobs of their choosing.


Well, concerns about point-system bureaucratic elitism aside, what I'm hearing is basically journalism-type information that's broadcast to everyone about what roles and duties remain outstanding for the society.

You're also indicating a 'threshold' approach, in that everyone would have to work to a certain number of points in order to secure a 'staple' provision, at a minimum.

I find this to be un-communistic, since communism is supposed to be about free-access.

[ckaihatsu]

People always assume that humans always have to do jobs. If you see how technology is advancing, you can also see how rapidly technology is replacing a human work force. If we use the technology to it's fullest extent and keep expanding on it, then there will be less for humans to do.


Yes.





The jobs that are available could then be cut down to as little as an hour a day depending on the population size.


Just to be the 'bad guy' again, I'll point out that a post-capitalist society could very well turn out to be quite *ambitious* -- and/or natural conditions could force our hand, as with having to leave the planet to escape an incoming asteroid -- so the collective work necessary could be sizeable, depending on actual conditions.

Of course I agree that in the present humanity is aching and striving to just get to a 'break-even' point where we can use the earth and ourselves, *for* ourselves, for once in human history -- it would definitely be a plateau.

[Skyhilist]

Well, concerns about point-system bureaucratic elitism aside, what I'm hearing is basically journalism-type information that's broadcast to everyone about what roles and duties remain outstanding for the society.

Yeah basically people just can look up point values of jobs, choose jobs adding a a certain number of points, and work out hours and how much they'll work within those jobs based on ability.


You're also indicating a 'threshold' approach, in that everyone would have to work to a certain number of points in order to secure a 'staple' provision, at a minimum.

I find this to be un-communistic, since communism is supposed to be about free-access.

Hmmm perhaps I wasn't quite clear because I see that as what I'm proposing. Basic necessities definitely should be rights and distributed freely and by need regardless of labor. However, there is a distinction between what people want and what people need. For things that are more luxuries and not basic necessities, if you are capable of work and an adult, you'd be expected to work at what ever level you'd reasonable be able to/needed to. So in other words, everyone gets stuff like free housing, food, water, etc. but if you want a flat screen TV or something and are a mature adult who is capable of work then it's not unreasonable to expect you to work in some type of field (of your choice and to whatever extent you're reasonably able to) in order to gain access to such items prior to the achievable of completely automated labor and full post-scarcity.

[Skyhilist]

Sorry there's a few typos I was typing on my phone.

[Skyhilist]

Also maybe I haven't made this clear enough: working more points is not related to the number of hours someone works (for which there'd be no set limits ecause ability varies), or the difficulty of labor. And everyone who works a certain number of points (again, not necessarily a certain number of hours) gains free access (or at least as free as possible if demand exceeded supply for something) to non-essential, non-needed (but otherwise desired) resources.

[ckaihatsu]

Hmmm perhaps I wasn't quite clear because I see that as what I'm proposing. Basic necessities definitely should be rights and distributed freely and by need regardless of labor. However, there is a distinction between what people want and what people need. For things that are more luxuries and not basic necessities, if you are capable of work and an adult, you'd be expected to work at what ever level you'd reasonable be able to/needed to. So in other words, everyone gets stuff like free housing, food, water, etc. but if you want a flat screen TV or something and are a mature adult who is capable of work then it's not unreasonable to expect you to work in some type of field (of your choice and to whatever extent you're reasonably able to) in order to gain access to such items prior to the achievable of completely automated labor and full post-scarcity.


Okay, glad you clarified it -- I was thinking of someone else's plan that wasn't free access and had a stepped / tiered structure to it.

So basically the gift economy takes care of the basics, while some kind of administration, I presume, oversees the assignment of point values to items.





Yeah basically people just can look up point values of jobs, choose jobs adding a a certain number of points, and work out hours and how much they'll work within those jobs based on ability.


Okay, got it.

I'll proffer that the following diagram might be congruent here, if we remove the fixed-rotation aspect and replace it with your point-values-per-task.


Rotation system of work roles

http://s6.postimage.org/6pho0fbot/2403306060046342459_Gtc_Sd_P_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/6pho0fbot/)


If this is correct, I'll ask if the goods that are available (by points) are according to local area only, or if they might be distributed to wherever a person happens to be geographically.





Also maybe I haven't made this clear enough: working more points is not related to the number of hours someone works (for which there'd be no set limits ecause ability varies), or the difficulty of labor.


Okay, so the points themselves contain, and imply, both inherent difficulty and number of hours -- ?

(So then it's basically piecework or per-project, for points.)





And everyone who works a certain number of points (again, not necessarily a certain number of hours) gains free access (or at least as free as possible if demand exceeded supply for something) to non-essential, non-needed (but otherwise desired) resources.


Okay, then this part is a 'threshold', or 'tiered' model, to the 'want' section, which is first-come-first-served.