financial equality - exactly the same or different?

[CubanDream]

How 'equal' should financial equality actually be - wages exactly the same, or small to medium differences?

how about 1000USD month to 3000/month range plus some kind of benefits, iow; 3X the rate for top earners as the max? (these figures are for theoretical purposes only)

or is that too much, too little?? thanks

and no wages at all, how much should benefits or credits differ?

[ckaihatsu]

How 'equal' should financial equality actually be - wages exactly the same, or small to medium differences?

how about 1000USD month to 3000/month range plus some kind of benefits, iow; 3X the rate for top earners as the max? (these figures are for theoretical purposes only)

or is that too much, too little?? thanks

and no wages at all, how much should benefits or credits differ?


Overall this is a rather *skewed* approach to the subject -- the point of 'collectivization' is to move past the hyper-individuated approach to the ownership / management / administration of materials, in favor of a *collective* approach to such matters.

So, instead of thinking in terms of abstracted valuations, like 'How much is my labor worth?', the collectivist ethos would be one of 'What kind of infrastructure do we all want to see, and how can we organize our labor in common to make it happen -- ?'

[Blake's Baby]

I'm not even sure what the question is supposed to mean.

In communist societ money will cease to exist.

[Tim Cornelis]

"benefits and credits" should differ as much as practice reveals they should. If economic conduct continues when everyone receives identical amount of credits, then why not, if it leads to minor problems, then a minor disparity can be put in place.

[Sinister Intents]

There will exist no money in communism, for it will be unnecessary and useless. So, there will be financial equality it that finances will no longer exist.

[ckaihatsu]

"benefits and credits" should differ as much as practice reveals they should. If economic conduct continues when everyone receives identical amount of credits, then why not, if it leads to minor problems, then a minor disparity can be put in place.





There will exist no money in communism, for it will be unnecessary and useless. So, there will be financial equality it that finances will no longer exist.


These respective approaches both have shortcomings that I'd be glad to elaborate on -- for the time being I'll refer to this recent graphic to make a general point:


Pies Must Line Up

http://s6.postimg.org/erqcsdyb1/140415_2_Pies_Must_Line_Up_xcf.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/erqcsdyb1/)

[CubanDream]

I'm not even sure what the question is supposed to mean.

In communist societ money will cease to exist.

Perhaps, but if money ceases to exist then how will we buy our food, items, services etc.. and if so, how much will we have to 'spend' - who determines how much each person gets etc..?

[CubanDream]

"benefits and credits" should differ as much as practice reveals they should. If economic conduct continues when everyone receives identical amount of credits, then why not, if it leads to minor problems, then a minor disparity can be put in place.

won't that just lead to a new class system though? ie: say the economy suggests that a manager should get 5000 credits but a mechanic only 500 - aren't we just heading backwards again.?

[CubanDream]

There will exist no money in communism, for it will be unnecessary and useless. So, there will be financial equality it that finances will no longer exist.

so what will stop me from taking too much - say I want to gorge myself on fancy food, where and how will the 'ration' be implemented?

[Sinister Intents]

so what will stop me from taking too much - say I want to gorge myself on fancy food, where and how will the 'ration' be implemented?

Take what you need and go ahead and have fancy food. Things will be produced according to wants and needs, supply and demand of course will still exist. What will keep you from taking too much is probably common sense and knowing that others need the food you're taking as well. Things will be created for all for free. There will exist no state to mandate rations and no state to hold up the idea of private property, of which property is robbery. I should also add things will be done out of mutual aid, but not solely mutual aid alone, people are naturally cooperative and will do as such, they will cooperate.

[Remus Bleys]

so what will stop me from taking too much - say I want to gorge myself on fancy food, where and how will the 'ration' be implemented?
Think like this. A common example is "what if I take all the pencils and horde it, what then stupid?" Okay well them we will simply take the pencils that you are not using. The place you horded the stash at will either be used as the new place to distributed these "goods" or they will be moved to a better location or something. Unused labor will be used to fulfill more needs and satisfaction, but also as a storage for the future, both immediate and distant.
Will s man watch 100 movies in a day? He can do that today. Will a man burn down his house and collect the insurance? There will be no reason to (mental illness that needs to be addressed maybe?) to do this as one will not collect any insurance money and he can just"ask" for better living arrangements, being given to him in a few short whiles.
I don't understand why people say "why would you work"? Why wouldn't you, knowing that it the work actually benefits all humans and oneself? Plus, the amount of work would be significantly reduced, and son with machinery and if unproductive work is done away with, the amount will be nihil.
When Marx said "personal property" he meant property being used by someone. I'm not going to snatch the pencil out of your hand.

[CubanDream]

I'm thinking of the pre-communist state - so in the Socialist state, what is the wage structure, for example how did it really work in the Soviet Union?

[Remus Bleys]

The socialist state is not "socialism," rather a recognition that it is an attempt to establish socialism (lower phase communism).
Camatte said it best:

The transition from one to the other cannot be represented by a formula, as in the case of capital, because the transformation supposes the destruction of a formula: communism being realized while the human species is unified and exploits the planet. Any formula would be a formula in its becoming, a contradiction in terms.

Incidentally the same text went over the transistion (in fact, that was the name of the article), here http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/capcom/ch07.htm

[Tim Cornelis]

won't that just lead to a new class system though? ie: say the economy suggests that a manager should get 5000 credits but a mechanic only 500 - aren't we just heading backwards again.?

Well, again "benefits and credits should differ as much as practice reveals they should". If practice reveals there is a need to give 5000 credits to person A, and only 500 to person B; and this creates a class society it would mean socialism has failed. But you don't go implement that credit disparity as default. You only do that if 1000-2000 or 800-3000 or whatever doesn't work.

Regardless, a manager? If you have a manager in the first place you essentially have a class society. Also, I very much doubt a credit disparity is required. Even Cuba had lower income disparities in 1970s-1980s.

[ckaihatsu]

Perhaps, but if money ceases to exist then how will we buy our food, items, services etc.. and if so, how much will we have to 'spend' - who determines how much each person gets etc..?


Yes -- 'economic democracy' is equivalent to 'market socialism', which is better than capitalism, but is worse than a gift economy if there's sufficient abundance and willing liberated labor to make it happen.

The 'Pies Must Line Up' graphic at post #6 notes that if some system of tokens is used -- as with the well-known 'labor vouchers' -- then all labor vouchers would have to match-up to all 'liberated human labor' performed, *and* to 'consumption'. I just find this to be too unwieldy and infeasible -- the flaw is in trying to find correct ratios for the exchangeability of liberated labor to material rewards, *and* making sure that actual materials for such ratios actually exist.





won't that just lead to a new class system though? ie: say the economy suggests that a manager should get 5000 credits but a mechanic only 500 - aren't we just heading backwards again.?


(TC already noted that 'manager' would be inappropriate here.)

And, yes again -- this is my critique, too, that there wouldn't / couldn't be a set formula, or algorithm, for setting the rates used for material compensation. It couldn't be done by democratic voting, either, because there's no inherent correlation between mass subjective opinion and actual material realities:





Labor vouchers imply a political economy that *consciously* determines valuations, but there's nothing to guarantee that such oversight -- regardless of its composition -- would properly take material realities into account. Such a system would be open to the systemic problems of groupthink and elitism.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673


---





so what will stop me from taking too much - say I want to gorge myself on fancy food, where and how will the 'ration' be implemented?





Take what you need and go ahead and have fancy food. Things will be produced according to wants and needs, supply and demand of course will still exist. What will keep you from taking too much is probably common sense and knowing that others need the food you're taking as well. Things will be created for all for free. There will exist no state to mandate rations and no state to hold up the idea of private property, of which property is robbery. I should also add things will be done out of mutual aid, but not solely mutual aid alone, people are naturally cooperative and will do as such, they will cooperate.


I tend to favor this 'gift economy' approach, since I think material realities (abundance) would allow for it, but it's also *limited* regarding coordination across broader geographical regions, and at its outer edges, for specialty-type goods and services.

[Blake's Baby]

Perhaps, but if money ceases to exist then [1] how will we buy our food, items, services etc.. and if so, [2] how much will we have to 'spend' - [3]who determines how much each person gets etc..?

1 - we won't;
2 - we won't 'spend' anything;
3 - society, or ourselves.

It's not clear whether you're discussing the period of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat; or the first phase of communist society when classes no longer exist and production has been reorganised but a free-access society has not yet been established; or a higher, free-access stage of communist society. Answers to your questions depend on knowing what your questions are supposed to mean.

Until we have a free-access society, I advocate rationing-by-need, rather than rationing-by-price (money) or rationing-by-work (labour vouchers).

[Slavic]

Things will be created for all for free. There will exist no state to mandate rations and no state to hold up the idea of private property, of which property is robbery.

Would you agree that a ration would not be madated by the state but by the community at large?

Also if such community were to mandate a ration, would they be in the right to enforce it physically?

[ckaihatsu]

Until we have a free-access society, I advocate rationing-by-need, rather than rationing-by-price (money) or rationing-by-work (labour vouchers).





Would you agree that a ration would not be madated by the state but by the community at large?

Also if such community were to mandate a ration, would they be in the right to enforce it physically?


I'd welcome anyone to describe how a 'ration' system might be implemented, since some tend to throw around the term quite freely, but it's never stated what the actual guidelines might be for it.

[CubanDream]

1 - we won't;
2 - we won't 'spend' anything;
3 - society, or ourselves.

It's not clear whether you're discussing the period of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat; or the first phase of communist society when classes no longer exist and production has been reorganised but a free-access society has not yet been established; or a higher, free-access stage of communist society. Answers to your questions depend on knowing what your questions are supposed to mean.

Until we have a free-access society, I advocate rationing-by-need, rather than rationing-by-price (money) or rationing-by-work (labour vouchers).

I'm talking here about early stage socialism, say early days in the SU - so when you say 'rationing by need', who determines what that need is?

[Sinister Intents]

Would you agree that a ration would not be madated by the state but by the community at large?

Also if such community were to mandate a ration, would they be in the right to enforce it physically?

I suppose so, and I would hope there is a great reason why such a thing would be used, like a famine perhaps. A community wide ration though would still have those that try to break through it, and I would hope its not something physically enforced, more something that is stated and it becomes necessary to follow out of necessity rather than force.

[CubanDream]

How about self-employed type work - could people earn as much as they wanted, and if not, then how could income equality be enforced?

Because I see income equality as the main goal here, otherwise class will re-develop/continue

how about profits for a small business, what happens when they get too large, if they go to the govt via tax, then what - ie: what does the govt do with this revenue, btw: yes, I'm talking about early stage socialism here