Financial equality - why not?

[CubanDream]

So, I always thought financial equality was a key aim of Marxism, seems I am wrong on this one:o

But why not?

Let's say everyone is more or less on the same income/credit system, then won't that encourage equality/socialism?

Obviously this is before the stateless situation is reached.

And how did the SU deal with this?

[Five Year Plan]

So, I always thought financial equality was a key aim of Marxism, seems I am wrong on this one:o

But why not?

Let's say everyone is more or less on the same income/credit system, then won't that encourage equality/socialism?

Obviously this is before the stateless situation is reached.

And how did the SU deal with this?

Do different people have different needs? If so, why should there be "financial equality"?

[Redistribute the Rep]

So, I always thought financial equality was a key aim of Marxism, seems I am wrong on this one:o

But why not?

Let's say everyone is more or less on the same income/credit system, then won't that encourage equality/socialism?

Obviously this is before the stateless situation is reached.

And how did the SU deal with this?

If people all have the same income, then what is even the point of having money? And who would distribute the money? If there is wage labor then it is still capitalism.

The SU didn't have wealth equality. Government workers and KGB members had many perks others didn't get.

[RedWorker]

Since unemployment was abolished, the Soviet worker, in contrast to a Capitalist worker, was more secure economically.[9] In return for working, a Soviet worker would get an individual return in the form of a money wage. Money wage in Soviet parlance was not the same as in Capitalist countries.[1] The money wage was set at the top of the administrative system, and it was the same administrative system which also set bonuses. Wages were 80 percent of the average Soviet workers income, with the remaining 20 coming in the form of bonuses. The Soviet wage system tried systematically to make wages more equal; for instance, the relationship between wages was termed "ITRs", a measure of comparing wages across occupations. For engineers and other technical workers ITR was 1.68 in 1955, but had decreased to 1.21 in 1977.[10] Social wages were also an important part of the general standard of living for an average household; it stood at 23.4 percent of income for the average Soviet worker and their family, and at 19.1 percent for the family income of collective farmers. In the period between 1971–81, the social wage grew faster than the money wage; the money wage grew by 45 percent for workers and employees and 72 for workers at collective farms. In contrast, per capita income from social wages increased by 81 percent. Social wage took many forms; it could be improved health, education, transport or food subsidies, which was the responsibility of the state, or the improvement (or introduction) of sanitation and working facilities.[1]

(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_working_class#Wages))

[Slavic]

So, I always thought financial equality was a key aim of Marxism, seems I am wrong on this one:o

But why not?

Let's say everyone is more or less on the same income/credit system, then won't that encourage equality/socialism?

Obviously this is before the stateless situation is reached.

And how did the SU deal with this?


It is a reformist platform. The logic goes that if financial equality is legislated than everyone will be able to afford their basic material needs for life. It does not address the relationship that workers have toward the mean of production though so it is essentialy not a socialist platform in the slightest.

Also in what context are you discussing income inequality? Are we discoursing the merits of such a program during an actual socialist revolution or as a demand within a capitalist society?

[Loony Le Fist]

I'm not sure I agree with complete wage equality. I think there are some workers that do dangerous jobs that deserve more compensation than what I receive because of the risk. However, I think there should definitely be complete equality (or at least as much as possible) in terms of access and availability of healthcare. All forms: dental, optical, mental, primary care, ER, etc.

Of course, the disparities we observe in capitalist economies are absurd.

[CubanDream]

Do different people have different needs? If so, why should there be "financial equality"?

different needs? not really.

Say you had a family though, perhaps some kind of welfare for kids or unemployed adults

but as for salaries, they would be more or less the same

[CubanDream]

If people all have the same income, then what is even the point of having money? And who would distribute the money? If there is wage labor then it is still capitalism.

The SU didn't have wealth equality. Government workers and KGB members had many perks others didn't get.

A system of perks and benefits is ok, and slight differences will be inevitable, but I'm talking about a truck driver's basic salary as being the same as a manager's - why not?

[CubanDream]

(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_working_class#Wages))

good post, this seems to be a good system - so why not advocate it now?

[#FF0000]

Communists aim to abolish the wage system and money, ultimately.

[CubanDream]

It is a reformist platform. The logic goes that if financial equality is legislated than everyone will be able to afford their basic material needs for life. It does not address the relationship that workers have toward the mean of production though so it is essentialy not a socialist platform in the slightest.

If the workers own the means of production then surely they will all get about the same amount of wage/value/use/credit out of the produce - or if not, who will determine what everyone gets?



Also in what context are you discussing income inequality? Are we discoursing the merits of such a program during an actual socialist revolution or as a demand within a capitalist society?Early to mid stage Socialist state (ie: pre-communist society)

[CubanDream]

I'm not sure I agree with complete wage equality. I think there are some workers that do dangerous jobs that deserve more compensation than what I receive because of the risk. However, I think there should definitely be complete equality (or at least as much as possible) in terms of access and availability of healthcare. All forms: dental, optical, mental, primary care, ER, etc.


well, it's more risky to work as a security guard in a rough area, than say being a manager - so how would that work out?

[Five Year Plan]

different needs? not really.

Say you had a family though, perhaps some kind of welfare for kids or unemployed adults

but as for salaries, they would be more or less the same

People don't have different needs? Some don't need to consume more calories to stay healthy? Some don't need more fresh air to stay happy? Some people don't pursue hobbies that require more living space than others? What right-wing caricature of a communist world did you beam in from?

[tuwix]

But why not?



Because it's just impossible. Money beside being an universal payment mean is a measure of richness. If you have such measure, you can't be equal. One will have $5 and other one $100 and another one $1,000,000. Financial equality is just impossible.

[adipocere]

People don't have different needs? Some don't need to consume more calories to stay healthy? Some don't need more fresh air to stay happy? Some people don't pursue hobbies that require more living space than others? What right-wing caricature of a communist world did you beam in from?

Lobster, golf and a swiss chalet. fuck yeah sign me up!

[Five Year Plan]

Lobster, golf and a swiss chalet. fuck yeah sign me up!

It is human nature to game the system, right, which is why socialism would never work. That's why we should vote for Obama instead, right CPUSA supporter? Anyway, the operative word in my post was "need," which should not be confused with "want."

[CubanDream]

People don't have different needs? Some don't need to consume more calories to stay healthy? Some don't need more fresh air to stay happy? Some people don't pursue hobbies that require more living space than others? What right-wing caricature of a communist world did you beam in from?

There's a blurry line between needs and wants.

How about if my hobby is flying a personal helicopter whilst feeding my 10 children on steak and vintage wine........?

Anyway, I thought you were pro-equality - yep, that means all our needs should be more or less the same, small differences allowable for basic items - such as bigger people needing more food for instance.

[CubanDream]

Because it's just impossible. Money beside being an universal payment mean is a measure of richness. If you have such measure, you can't be equal. One will have $5 and other one $100 and another one $1,000,000. Financial equality is just impossible.

Cash could be abolished, and everything could be purchased via a debit card system - this would cover that.

[Five Year Plan]

There's a blurry line between needs and wants.

How about if my hobby is flying a personal helicopter whilst feeding my 10 children on steak and vintage wine........?

Anyway, I thought you were pro-equality - yep, that means all our needs should be more or less the same, small differences allowable for basic items - such as bigger people needing more food for instance.

You constantly feign curiosity and ask questions as a guise for presenting right-wing talking points, then presenting right-wing caricatures of communism as a standard which you fault members of this forum for not living up to.

In other words, you have the definite smell of a troll. It was fun chatting, though, and I hope lurkers learned something from the exchanges. Adios.

[CubanDream]

How about coming up with a real defence of financial inequality then - can you do that?

A tepid declaration of 'you are a reactionary right-wing troll' does not count.

[Five Year Plan]

How about coming up with a real defence of financial inequality then - can you do that?

I have a "real defense." I am just not going to waste my time posting it here, because I have concluded that you are not in this for the actual discussion. You are in it to be a nuisance, disrupt the board, and act like an ass. Any other questions?

[CubanDream]

Dodge noted.
:rolleyes:

[CubanDream]

Any other questions?

How about you give definitions of 'need' and 'want', and some concrete examples of the differences.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In addition to what aufheben said, wage differentials are an important mechanism for allocating labour in the transitional stage, the dictatorship of the proletariat. If there is a shortage of labour in a particular area, the shortage could be filled by ordering workers to change jobs - rarely a good idea - or by raising the wages in the areas that are experiencing a shortage.

There is no need to do this in communism but then again in communism there are no wages and no money so moot point.

[CubanDream]

ok, but how about under normal circumstance, ie: forgetting about labor shortages.

How much should the manager/doctor/lawyer get in relation to the car mechanic or kitchen assistant?

[tuwix]

Cash could be abolished, and everything could be purchased via a debit card system - this would cover that.

And how electronic money would solve a problem that one has $5 and another one $100? Do you really know what is inequality?

[Slavic]

ok, but how about under normal circumstance, ie: forgetting about labor shortages.

How much should the manager/doctor/lawyer get in relation to the car mechanic or kitchen assistant?


Since you stated that this is a theoretical transitional society with a DotP, then I would assume that the over arcing goal of the DotP at this time would be ensuring ample production of food, housing, medicare etc. aswell as eliminating or replacing old capitalist institutions.

This being said; wages, income, credits should only be utilized during extreme situations such as the initial revolutionary war or essential resource/labor shortages.

Following your normalized circumstance scenario, in which there is no labor shortages and I'm assuming essential goods shortages, then there is no reason why money should even exist let along income equality. If there is an abundance of resources then everyone should be free to take from this abundance when they are in need.

No shortages means no rationing, and no rationing means no method of equaly dividing resources ie. wages, credits etc.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

ok, but how about under normal circumstance, ie: forgetting about labor shortages.

How much should the manager/doctor/lawyer get in relation to the car mechanic or kitchen assistant?

Labour shortages are not extraordinary circumstances, they occur constantly. The composition of the labour force is rarely in line with what is necessary to complete the production plans, and workers are not inclined to work long, tiring and difficult jobs. Now, the workers can be ordered to work in these jobs - which causes problems for labour discipline - or they can be given material incentive to do so.

The question of the spetsi is a different question. If there is a necessity to attract bourgeois specialists, they could be given a wage grade that is much higher than that of a "regular" worker. If not, they can probably expect the same wage as an unskilled worker.




Following your normalized circumstance scenario, in which there is no labor shortages and I'm assuming essential goods shortages, then there is no reason why money should even exist let along income equality.

The problem is, an isolated country can not abolish market mechanisms in their entirety without the complete destruction of capitalism as a world system.

[adipocere]

It is human nature to game the system, right, which is why socialism would never work. That's why we should vote for Obama instead, right CPUSA supporter? Anyway, the operative word in my post was "need," which should not be confused with "want."

There is no need to get your knickers in a self-righteous little wad. Stupid ad-hominem aside, I was just interpreting your own words. I'm sure the rich feel that they really need just what you described.

[Slavic]

The problem is, an isolated country can not abolish market mechanisms in their entirety without the complete destruction of capitalism as a world system.

I know, the point I was trying to make is that financial equality should and is not a goal for socialists because it just dead-ends into a sorta social democratic society whilst leaving capitalist mechanisms intact.

[Five Year Plan]

There is no need to get your knickers in a self-righteous little wad. Stupid ad-hominem aside, I was just interpreting your own words. I'm sure the rich feel that they really need just what you described.

Yes, you were applying your own interpretation to my words, and your interpretation has little basis in Marxism. Needs are not determined by "feelings" (by the rich, the poor, or otherwise). They are socially determined, and correspond to the given level of development. It's not surprising you don't understand this, since, as I said, your politics in many other areas don't seem informed by Marxism, either.

[adipocere]

Yes, you were applying your own interpretation to my words, and your interpretation has little basis in Marxism. Needs are not determined by "feelings" (by the rich, the poor, or otherwise). They are socially determined, and correspond to the given level of development. It's not surprising you don't understand this, since, as I said, your politics in many other areas don't seem informed by Marxism, either.
Actually I agree with you and I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but don't let that stop you from contrarian overreaction.

[CubanDream]

And how electronic money would solve a problem that one has $5 and another one $100? Do you really know what is inequality?

A figure, let's say for sake of argument, 1000USD, would be put onto each person's card per month, with slight differences to account for hrs done etc..

[CubanDream]

.Following your normalized circumstance scenario, in which there is no labor shortages and I'm assuming essential goods shortages, then there is no reason why money should even exist let along income equIf there is an abundance of resources then everyone should be free to take from this abundance when they are in need.

No shortages means no rationing, and no rationing means no method of equaly dividing resources ie. wages, credits etc.

And if there are shortages? who gets what?

And when you say 'equally dividing resources' - that sounds like financial equality (even if money were not used) , which is what I am advocating anyway.

[CubanDream]

The question of the spetsi is a different question. If there is a necessity to attract bourgeois specialists, they could be given a wage grade that is much higher than that of a "regular" worker. If not, they can probably expect the same wage as an unskilled worker.

The problem I see here is that the b-gois specialist can then create an artificial labour 'shortage' - in the hope to get a raise.

[tuwix]

A figure, let's say for sake of argument, 1000USD, would be put onto each person's card per month, with slight differences to account for hrs done etc..

Then it's wage equality in case without such "slight differences". Such "slight differences" makes inequality. But financial equality is sill impossible.

Besides putting the same amount of money monthly makes no sense. The arguments against it were give to you by others.

[CubanDream]

No one has said what will prevent some people taking more than their share, let's say from the local supermarket.

[tuwix]

^^ Maybe because it's not a problem. Maybe because capitalism creates an artificial scarcity. And communism will create such abundance that limits won't be necessary in local equivalents of supermarket. And maybe that's all beyond your imagination...

[CubanDream]

Do you mean like the abundances in the SU and Vietnam - come on, let's have some realism for a change.

Before this utopia is reached, then what will stop people from taking more than their fair share?

[tuwix]

^^ Yeah, it's definitely beyond your imagination. You think that the SU and Vietnam were communist countries, because you confuse state capitalism with communism. And this is why you aren't Marxist at all definitely as others noticed yet...

[CubanDream]

They were semi-communist - kind of vulgar Marxism, I guess that's the correct term.

Better than nothing IMO

[tuwix]

^^No, it isn't correct term. The correct term is state capitalism.

And a lack of scarcity, money is to be achieved by automation of production.

[synthesis]

A figure, let's say for sake of argument, 1000USD, would be put onto each person's card per month, with slight differences to account for hrs done etc..

Guy got banned, but just for reference this is basically an extended "basic income," not "financial equality," whatever that means - basic income being something which prominent anarcho-capitalists have also advocated, as a replacement for the bureaucracy of a welfare state. If you're talking about leveling everyone else's income down to this amount... good luck achieving that without a revolution.