To each according to his deed?

[Red Star Rising]

As a Socialist/Communist I have always encountered the typical "binman - doctor" argument (always that exact example as if it has been beamed into peoples' minds). I have always either responded with "to each according to his DEED, until the higher stage of Communism which would be to each according to his NEED" or said that more menial jobs would be handled by a rotational system or a lottery or something.

But what exactly does to each according to his deed mean? I have never quite been clear on this. Marx said that all human labour in whatever form had the common quality of being the embodiment human labour power, therefore, a job that is deemed 3 times as valuable as another is simply a measurably intensified form of human labour power - 1 hour of a doctor's labour contains as much undifferentiated human labour power. Does this mean that a brain surgeon would still be "paid" more than a binman under Socialism (but would still be unable to invest in business property ownership etc.)

I don't quite understand how this works, and I want to understand it as much as possible seeing as it is such a common capitalist argument.

[Wht.Rex]

That is old Marxist saying and was often used in Soviet Union.
От каждого по его способностям, каждому по его труду (Eng: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need)
That means, how much you worked, same amount you will also get your rewarded.

You see, unlike in capitalism, where money is dominant way rewarding someone, in socialism, money is just paper, a mere bonus, like a cupoun for extra. In socialism, means of productions that society creates, belong to society itself (that includes healthcare, education, housing etc. it is all for people and not for special someones who has money).

It is hard to explain, you have to understand collective perosnality. Me as person who was born in Soviet community is much easier to understand it. It is about morality of material.

[tuwix]

I was living in a country where doctor was earning less than miner and doctors didn't protest very much against it. Now if you want a position in Polish state healthcare system and you willing to work only 8 hour a day, you will be still earning less than miner.

I think it's just fetishism about doctors' salary. And Marx really meant 'according to needs', but it is to be possible when there will be no scarcity of products...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As a Socialist/Communist I have always encountered the typical "binman - doctor" argument (always that exact example as if it has been beamed into peoples' minds). I have always either responded with "to each according to his DEED, until the higher stage of Communism which would be to each according to his NEED" or said that more menial jobs would be handled by a rotational system or a lottery or something.

But what exactly does to each according to his deed mean? I have never quite been clear on this. Marx said that all human labour in whatever form had the common quality of being the embodiment human labour power, therefore, a job that is deemed 3 times as valuable as another is simply a measurably intensified form of human labour power - 1 hour of a doctor's labour contains as much undifferentiated human labour power. Does this mean that a brain surgeon would still be "paid" more than a binman under Socialism (but would still be unable to invest in business property ownership etc.)

I don't quite understand how this works, and I want to understand it as much as possible seeing as it is such a common capitalist argument.

Keep in mind the labour theory of value is an explanation of how value is produced under capitalism, not a blueprint for "ideal" remuneration. In fact Marx was opposed to "Ricardian socialists" who wanted workers to be paid according to the socially-necessary labour-time they expended producing commodities, while retaining the market, commodity production etc. Second, "to each according to his contribution" is not itself a plan for how this contribution is to be assessed - the point was that in the lower phase of the communist society - or so Marx thought taking the development of the productive forces in the nineteenth century into account - full access would not be possible.

As for how remuneration in the transitional period would be arranged, experience shows that workers would be paid similar wages, with skilled and priority labour receiving additional remuneration, and sadly enough the specialists might have to be enticed to offer their services to the workers' state by higher wages.

I say sadly because there are few things that are more obnoxious than the self-important spets. "Boo-hoo they're going to pay the common people as much as they pay me so I can't feel smugly superior which is the only thing that gets my dick hard." Fucking wankers.

[Tim Cornelis]

Whatever "contribution" means would be subject to collective decision making. "Labor-time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labor borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption." Each individual his labour time would be measured and assigned a value.
And experience, unlike 870s claim, tells us nothing since durable experience with labour certificates, of socialisme, has not yet existed. Directly social labour has never been in existentie and therefore no such claims van be made. Unless we invert materialism and express socialism judicially rather than als borne from iTS social relationship of production, als is unfortunately typical of leninists.

[ckaihatsu]

As a Socialist/Communist I have always encountered the typical "binman - doctor" argument (always that exact example as if it has been beamed into peoples' minds). I have always either responded with "to each according to his DEED, until the higher stage of Communism which would be to each according to his NEED" or said that more menial jobs would be handled by a rotational system or a lottery or something.

But what exactly does to each according to his deed mean? I have never quite been clear on this. Marx said that all human labour in whatever form had the common quality of being the embodiment human labour power, therefore, a job that is deemed 3 times as valuable as another is simply a measurably intensified form of human labour power - 1 hour of a doctor's labour contains as much undifferentiated human labour power. Does this mean that a brain surgeon would still be "paid" more than a binman under Socialism (but would still be unable to invest in business property ownership etc.)

I don't quite understand how this works, and I want to understand it as much as possible seeing as it is such a common capitalist argument.


I'll start by noting that Marx's line should be taken more as a *slogan*, rather than as a *doctrine* -- and only because of *logistical* realities.

Here's from a recent thread:





"The same amount of labor he has contributed to society will be returned in proportion."





[S]uch a calculation would be impossible to arrive-at in the first place, for the same reasons that it's impossible to determine what fraction of a dollar today is labor-based (as opposed to exchange-value-based).

A simple argument against the conventional conception would be to ask how to handle the benefits of labor on an *inter-generational* basis -- should younger, incoming generations be obligated to rebuild the world anew, from scratch -- ? If not then they're obviously benefitting from *past labor*, which is disproportionate to the limited years of labor they could have possibly put in at such a young age.


Of course socially-necessary work roles do and will vary widely, due to factors of intensity, hazard, difficulty, educational requirements, training, and expertise. Any social order would have to take these objective differences into account, for a comprehensive approach to the question of labor consideration.

Here's an illustration:


Pies Must Line Up

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


And here's a framework that provides for these objective factors:





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




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

[Red Star Rising]

I'll start by noting that Marx's line should be taken more as a *slogan*, rather than as a *doctrine* -- and only because of *logistical* realities.

Here's from a recent thread:








Of course socially-necessary work roles do and will vary widely, due to factors of intensity, hazard, difficulty, educational requirements, training, and expertise. Any social order would have to take these objective differences into account, for a comprehensive approach to the question of labor consideration.

Here's an illustration:


Pies Must Line Up

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


And here's a framework that provides for these objective factors:

This is all very overwhelming considering I am not as familiar with economic theory as everyone else here :unsure: - I can't really make sense of that pie chart illustration, what exactly is it telling me. Can you give a simple summary or something?

[ckaihatsu]

This is all very overwhelming considering I am not as familiar with economic theory as everyone else here :unsure: - I can't really make sense of that pie chart illustration, what exactly is it telling me. Can you give a simple summary or something?


Which part of it are you having trouble with?

[Red Star Rising]

Which part of it are you having trouble with?

What does "pies must line up" actually mean? And why must they? What would happen if they didn't/why is that impossible? And how is the illustration relevant to labour and payment?

[ckaihatsu]

What does "pies must line up" actually mean?


From the image:





This graphic depicts the objective reality that the material "pies" must line up, so that the totality of any one economic component corresponds to the totality of each of the others.


So, in the absence of all currency / finance / commodity production, what would remain would be the domains shown on the 'pies' -- goods & services produced, world material, liberated human labor, and consumption. 'Labor vouchers earned' is *not* a given, since I have yet to see a proposed implementation of such that would appropriately correspond with the other 4 domains, or economic components.





And why must they?


Consider that once all capital has been eliminated the subsequent social material reality would be as shown in the graphic -- if any one component of the 5 (like 'labor vouchers earned') *doesn't* line up with the others then there would be a societal material problem like underproduction or overproduction, basically. (Just take any two of them, yourself, and consider what would happen if they *didn't* correlate / match-up in terms of material quantities.)





What would happen if they didn't/why is that impossible? And how is the illustration relevant to labour and payment?


I'll continue with the 'labor vouchers' example -- here's from a recent thread:





Don't know why you would have concerns. "An amount" is whatever the commune decides, e.g. everyone gets 100 credits, and a scarce product X is assigned a price of 10 credits.





I'm sorry, but I still don't see how this is workable -- even with the best intentions and attentions I think that groupthink could easily be the shortcoming with this. In other words, if a commune decides that everyone gets 100 points and a scarce resource is equal to 10 points, there may be 1,000,000 people who would gladly put in their 10 points to get the scarce thing, but there happens to not be enough of it for a million people anyway -- that's why the whole points regime is *arbitrary* in relation to actual material quantities.


---


So, in other words, the labor voucher / point is being *overtasked* -- it's expected to provide an index of relative social value for both liberated labor *and* material quantities, which is just too much. It's unwieldy to the point of being intractable.

[Red Star Rising]

So, in other words, the labor voucher / point is being *overtasked* -- it's expected to provide an index of relative social value for both liberated labor *and* material quantities, which is just too much. It's unwieldy to the point of being intractable.

Well, it would work in a post-scarcity world, but at that point labour vouchers would be meaningless seeing as exchange rates would be pretty much zero. Doesn't current money behave in a pretty similar way anyway?

So what would be an alternative to labour vouchers as universal equivalent?

[TC]

Surely the presumption should be one of equality and any deviations from equality in distribution require special justification. Why should a doctor earn more? I have yet to hear any theory for that which I find morally compelling.

[Comrade #138672]

Well, Marxism focuses not so much on distribution relations, since distribution relations follow from production relations, i.e., the class relationships. Also, Marxism is not moralistic. It deals with a materialist understanding of society and how it functions. Surely, socialism guarantees a much more "equal" distribution as compared to capitalism, but perfectly equal distribution is not necessarily a trait of socialism. Plus, as soon as we have developed communism, wages will disappear altogether, and therewith the inequality of wages as well, since at that point there will be plenty for all.

[ckaihatsu]

So, in other words, the labor voucher / point is being *overtasked* -- it's expected to provide an index of relative social value for both liberated labor *and* material quantities, which is just too much. It's unwieldy to the point of being intractable.





Well, it would work in a post-scarcity world,


You can breezily assert whatever you like, of course, but that doesn't mean that it's automatically correct -- you're simply contradicting what I've been explaining, with your assertion here.





but at that point labour vouchers would be meaningless seeing as exchange rates would be pretty much zero.


The concept of labor vouchers is meant to address the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period, since society would be overthrowing all commodity production and use of exchange values (money). There would be no need for any inter-currency exchange rates at that point, true, but those who back the idea of a post-commodity 'vouchers' or 'points' system would not agree that such would be "meaningless" then.





Doesn't current money behave in a pretty similar way anyway?


I'm not sure what you mean to indicate with this -- you may want to rephrase it.





So what would be an alternative to labour vouchers as universal equivalent?


To recap, my position is that the vouchers idea is just 'kicking the can down the road', since that kind of system is barely different from any kind of currency / markets system that exists today.

Here's from that recent thread again:





scarce products get priced in those credits according to their scarcity- more scarce products costing more credits- and the scarce products get sold that way in the communal warehouses.





This just begs the political-economy question because in effect this is simply reverting to the market mechanism, and I happen to want a lot of points so that I can buy more scarce products.


Also:





The reason I said it 'smacks of elitism' is because of the arbitrariness of social decision-making over material quantities -- you're actually ready to assign a blanket '100 points' to everyone *regardless* of actual material quantities on-hand. This requires a market-faith-like belief that everyone's acquisitive intentions will just somehow "match up" to what's out there, with no shortages or mismatches whatsoever as a result.

As soon as your new 'invisible hand' fails *once* to properly allocate everything, the social conditions for elitism will emerge as a consequence.


---





So what would be an alternative to labour vouchers as universal equivalent?


My alternative framework is at post #6.

[Red Star Rising]

I'm not sure what you mean to indicate with this -- you may want to rephrase it.

I'm just saying that the problems encountered in a voucher system are not exclusive to a socialist economy - I agree that a voucher system just perpetuates the flaws a capitalist economy and some alternative needs to be found.

[ckaihatsu]

Surely the presumption should be one of equality [...]


Generally yes, of course, but the more-intricate part is *defining* 'equality' for such a context, especially regarding labor *effort* (varying kinds of work roles), and how it corresponds to material quantities for distribution and consumption -- hence the 'Pies Must Line Up' illustration.





Why should a doctor earn more? I have yet to hear any theory for that which I find morally compelling.


The argument is that *anyone* is capable of picking berries, for example, but not anyone can just readily step into the position of a doctor (etc.), because of the educational requirements for that kind of role.





[S]ocially-necessary work roles do and will vary widely, due to factors of intensity, hazard, difficulty, educational requirements, training, and expertise. Any social order would have to take these objective differences into account, for a comprehensive approach to the question of labor consideration.

[Red Star Rising]

You can breezily assert whatever you like, of course, but that doesn't mean that it's automatically correct -- you're simply contradicting what I've been explaining, with your assertion here.
Sorry......





The concept of labor vouchers is meant to address the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period, since society would be overthrowing all commodity production and use of exchange values (money). There would be no need for any inter-currency exchange rates at that point, true, but those who back the idea of a post-commodity 'vouchers' or 'points' system would not agree that such would be "meaningless" then.

At risk of getting into a tedious debate that I can't possibly finish, you initially pointed out correctly that any finite resource or commodity that is assigned a cost of 10 vouchers would run out when 1,000,000 people with ten vouchers attempt to purchase it so the voucher system is not feasible. I just said that in post-scarcity, there would be enough of the good for everyone and exchange rates would be zero. Therefore, there would surely be free access and no need for vouchers. What exactly am I missing here?

[Red Star Rising]

The argument is that *anyone* is capable of picking berries, for example, but not anyone can just readily step into the position of a doctor (etc.), because of the educational requirements for that kind of role.

Just because everyone is capable of doing it does not mean that it is automatically easier/preferable. Ask any doctor or politician if they would like to go work in a mine. There is no real moral reason why the number of people who are capable of a certain profession should influence its salary.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry......


No biggie.





At risk of getting into a tedious debate that I can't possibly finish, you initially pointed out correctly that any finite resource or commodity that is assigned a cost of 10 vouchers would run out when 1,000,000 people with ten vouchers attempt to purchase it so the voucher system is not feasible. I just said that in post-scarcity, there would be enough of the good for everyone and exchange rates would be zero. Therefore, there would surely be free access and no need for vouchers. What exactly am I missing here?


I would say that *no one* can *guarantee* abundance for *all* items -- the domains of up-and-coming technologies ('flying car') and time-requiring goods ('truffles', 'fine wine', etc.) would be examples of items that could *not* be readily mass-produced, and so could very well be 'scarce' in relation to extant demand.

Here's from a past thread:





My framework [...] addresses the *outer reaches* of what a strictly moneyless communistic 'gift economy' could conceivably cover. Some on the revolutionary left have suggested that perhaps a *remnant* of the former markets could exist within a post-capitalist social order, to cover luxury / specialty production, since such might be *unaddressed* by the more mass-oriented mainstream gift economy.




However, a regular market-based approach to luxury / specialty production could very well be more cumbersome than it's worth -- it would be tolerating a kind of exchange-values-based 'black market' within an otherwise free-access social paradigm.

My 'labor credits' is meant to acknowledge a post-capitalist liberated-labor on its own terms, without resorting to backsliding to any system of exchange values.


---





Just because everyone is capable of doing it does not mean that it is automatically easier/preferable.


Sure, I'll grant that people's subjectivities / inclinations vary, but that's actually *beside the point* -- the question in front of us as revolutionaries, if you will, is how an entire *society* is to value various kinds of labor, in a consistent way.





Ask any doctor or politician if they would like to go work in a mine. There is no real moral reason why the number of people who are capable of a certain profession should influence its salary.


Well I happen to agree with you myself, but that's beside the point, too -- we have to deal with objective realities as they present themselves, and if there's a flood of people who want to be doctors, politicians, and miners, but no one who really wants to pick berries, then that's what's in front of us.

For this scenario would society have a way of fairly selecting from all applicants for the limited number of work roles they all want to have -- ? And would society simply take 'berries' off of the menu, even though many people may want them -- ?

My model addresses these kinds of material realities:





labor [supply] -- Work positions are created according to requirements of production runs and projects, by mass political prioritization




labor [supply] -- All workers will be entirely liberated from all coercion and threats related to basic human living needs, regardless of work status -- any labor roles will be entirely self-selected and open to collective labor organizing efforts on the basis of accumulated labor credits




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

[Red Star Rising]

I would say that *no one* can *guarantee* abundance for *all* items -- the domains of up-and-coming technologies ('flying car') and time-requiring goods ('truffles', 'fine wine', etc.) would be examples of items that could *not* be readily mass-produced, and so could very well be 'scarce' in relation to extant demand.

Yeah, luxury goods (if they are still treated as luxuries at this point) would still have to be purchased. Would there be an order based system or something? But I doubt that there would be a huge backlog anyway - if you give people the option of free access ordinary wine or paying for finer wine most people will choose the former most of the time (just an assumption but I doubt that people will choose to pay for stuff when there is a free alternative, idk people are strange).


Sure, I'll grant that people's subjectivities / inclinations vary, but that's actually *beside the point* -- the question in front of us as revolutionaries, if you will, is how an entire *society* is to value various kinds of labor, in a consistent way.

Well, it is all subjective, of course. But the objectivity that all different forms of labour have in common is that they are all congealed human labour power. It cannot be denied that all forms of labour are objectively the same in this way. Thus they should be rewarded equally as differences in effort, desirability etc. are all subjective and will vary. Some people are gifted in Mathematics or Engineering and others are more tuned to Chemistry or medicine. All professions are equal in that they are human labour and should all be paid equally. Society as a whole can only agree on this fact, so all forms of labour are treated in the same way by society - all jobs have the same salary.




Well I happen to agree with you myself, but that's beside the point, too -- we have to deal with objective realities as they present themselves, and if there's a flood of people who want to be doctors, politicians, and miners, but no one who really wants to pick berries, then that's what's in front of us.

Then, I imagine, of all those people, the ones who want berries the most would either settle with picking berries or just go without berries. Or perhaps a system of rotation in which, from the abundance of people who want to be doctors and are qualified to be doctors, would still get to be doctors but it would sometimes be their turn to be the ones pick berries. Those who had been picking berries before would return to their usual work as doctors and another group would pick berries for a while. Just because you can pick berries with minimal training, you aren't unable to do so just because you are qualified to do a more glamorous job.

[TC]

Generally yes, of course, but the more-intricate part is *defining* 'equality' for such a context, especially regarding labor *effort* (varying kinds of work roles), and how it corresponds to material quantities for distribution and consumption -- hence the 'Pies Must Line Up' illustration.

I'm not interested in equality of effort - effort isn't in and of itself a proper aim of life or society. Different people almost certainly have a different capacity for willpower, concentration, and effort - and in any case why reward people simply for exerting a greater effort? This is part of the bourgeois justification for capitalism but I don't see why it should be compelling to a socialist.

Why should we be interested in any correspondence between effort and distribution and consumption? My quarrel with the capitalists is not merely that they take more than they "produce" or "earn" but that distribution should be based on equality modified according to need, not based on 'worth' or effort at all.


The argument is that *anyone* is capable of picking berries, for example, but not anyone can just readily step into the position of a doctor (etc.), because of the educational requirements for that kind of role.

Yes obviously I've heard that claim made before but to make an argument and not just a claim, you need to do more than just offer a basis for distinguishing one type of activity from another, you need to explain why that distinction ought to result in a distinction in distribution.

I have a doctorate, a masters degree, and a professional license - but I valued my time just as much when I didn't. Why should education or scarcity yield any difference in resources in a post-market economy?

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, luxury goods (if they are still treated as luxuries at this point) would still have to be purchased.


'Purchase' implies 'currency' of some sort, which means that there is no collective political economy or pre-planning around the providing of such goods. It's tantamount to a political *defeat*, an admission of failure on the part of the revolutionary social order since it's having to fall-back to an unplanned, market-based system for that domain of goods.

I'll also remind that it's not merely cultural elitist, hoity-toity goods that would be in this domain -- it would include *anything* that could not be readily mass produced or d.i.y., including specialty items that may pertain to areas of scientific research, hobbyist cultures, historical interests, and so on.





Would there be an order based system or something?


(I've already given my answer on this -- post #6.)





But I doubt that there would be a huge backlog anyway - if you give people the option of free access ordinary wine or paying for finer wine most people will choose the former most of the time (just an assumption but I doubt that people will choose to pay for stuff when there is a free alternative, idk people are strange).


This is an admission of incapability -- that even though things like fine wines exist, the revolutionary perspective would be unable to address such empirical realities, according to you. I would wonder who *would* get 'the better stuff', post-revolution, in your view of things.





Well, it is all subjective, of course.


Except for when there *are* differences in the quality of goods, as exists today.





But the objectivity that all different forms of labour have in common is that they are all congealed human labour power.


Agreed.





It cannot be denied that all forms of labour are objectively the same in this way.


Okay, but you're not saying much -- what *I'm* hearing is that 'labor is labor'.





Thus they should be rewarded equally as differences in effort, desirability etc. are all subjective and will vary.


Sure, there *would* be variations in inclination, as I've already acknowledged, but there are also *objective* differences in labor roles, such as working your whole life in a coal mine will predispose you to an early death, especially compared to a life of picking berries.





Some people are gifted in Mathematics or Engineering and others are more tuned to Chemistry or medicine. All professions are equal in that they are human labour and should all be paid equally.


If this were the case it would be in a person's best interests to *eschew* the *riskier* work roles, and get by in anything that's *less* risky, like picking berries. Also, no one would want to do any of the gruntwork-type tasks that may objectively exist, because people could just do easier things.





Society as a whole can only agree on this fact, so all forms of labour are treated in the same way by society - all jobs have the same salary.


I don't think that you're correct on this.





Then, I imagine, of all those people, the ones who want berries the most would either settle with picking berries or just go without berries.


This is *another* failure of the system -- the markets would have to take up the slack here, and would, for those who are willing to work for and use currency, for the variety of goods that they don't want to have to produce themselves.





Or perhaps a system of rotation in which, from the abundance of people who want to be doctors and are qualified to be doctors, would still get to be doctors but it would sometimes be their turn to be the ones pick berries. Those who had been picking berries before would return to their usual work as doctors and another group would pick berries for a while. Just because you can pick berries with minimal training, you aren't unable to do so just because you are qualified to do a more glamorous job.


And how would this 'rotation system' be administrated -- ? In other words, what would be a *socially valid* collection of work roles in rotation, to enable one to partake of the full bounty of society's production -- ? And what if any given grouping of socially valid work roles in rotation *didn't* actually produce enough for the expectations of those who put in their "sufficient" number of hours of work -- ? Finally, would *all* groupings of work roles be socially considered as equivalent, even if those different groupings produced *widely varying* amounts of material output -- ?

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not interested in equality of effort - effort isn't in and of itself a proper aim of life or society. Different people almost certainly have a different capacity for willpower, concentration, and effort - and in any case why reward people simply for exerting a greater effort?


Well, what if it turns out that greater efforts happen to produce greater *quantities* of something -- ? Should everyone be given equivalent consideration for consumption (from society's collective production), no matter how little or how much they're producing for others -- ?





This is part of the bourgeois justification for capitalism but I don't see why it should be compelling to a socialist.


Again, 'the pies must line up' -- I'm just pointing out that production is all about material quantities.





Why should we be interested in any correspondence between effort and distribution and consumption? My quarrel with the capitalists is not merely that they take more than they "produce" or "earn" but that distribution should be based on equality modified according to need, not based on 'worth' or effort at all.


If there happens to be an abundance of whatever goods from a societal collective production, then, yes, you're correct -- the tricky part is when there *isn't* an abundance, for whatever reason.





Yes obviously I've heard that claim made before but to make an argument and not just a claim, you need to do more than just offer a basis for distinguishing one type of activity from another, you need to explain why that distinction ought to result in a distinction in distribution.


My argument is that differences in work role prerequisites -- as over educational requirements -- yield distinctions / empirical differences in the material *supply* of laborers for those roles. Since it's easier for anyone to pick berries, the potential labor pool of 'berry pickers' is far more vast than that for 'doctors' (etc.), since not everyone will put in the necessary time and scholastic efforts to attain the necessary academic credentials to be a doctor or whatever.

I'm *not* arguing for any regime of differences in distribution -- I'm simply pointing out that not all labor roles are the same, due to objective differences in qualifications for those varying work roles.





I have a doctorate, a masters degree, and a professional license - but I valued my time just as much when I didn't. Why should education or scarcity yield any difference in resources in a post-market economy?


Because factors like education or material availability (abundance / scarcity) have an objective impact on what's available to everyone in society for consumption.

[Red Star Rising]

'Purchase' implies 'currency' of some sort, which means that there is no collective political economy or pre-planning around the providing of such goods. It's tantamount to a political *defeat*, an admission of failure on the part of the revolutionary social order since it's having to fall-back to an unplanned, market-based system for that domain of goods.

Exchanged for labour credits then. Everything I say assumes that capital and currency no longer exist.


I'll also remind that it's not merely cultural elitist, hoity-toity goods that would be in this domain -- it would include *anything* that could not be readily mass produced or d.i.y., including specialty items that may pertain to areas of scientific research, hobbyist cultures, historical interests, and so on.

Are millions and millions of people likely to want these things? If by historical interests you mean ancient artifacts, old manuscripts and the like, would theses items be the possessions of anybody? Wouldn't they be stored in public museums? The same would be true of items like famous paintings. Other specialty goods would just have to be ordered, and then prioritized based on who needs them the most
or would find the most use for them - scientific research would be prioritized. And as for hobbyist goods - the people who want such items are going to be limited to the people who would be interested in their use, there would not be a sudden influx in people who want these very specific-use items.



This is an admission of incapability -- that even though things like fine wines exist, the revolutionary perspective would be unable to address such empirical realities, according to you. I would wonder who *would* get 'the better stuff', post-revolution, in your view of things.

People who wanted to pay labour credits for it instead of getting worse wine for free. If there is a backlog, surely people are still capable of waiting for things. But people probably wouldn't have to wait too long because many would see that there was a queue and just decide to go with the free wine rather than wait for something that they have to pay for.




Except for when there *are* differences in the quality of goods, as exists today.

Well, I was talking about jobs not goods - job preference is subjective.



Okay, but you're not saying much -- what *I'm* hearing is that 'labor is labor'.

Labour is labour, yes. Why is labour in one form worth more than labour in another


Sure, there *would* be variations in inclination, as I've already acknowledged, but there are also *objective* differences in labor roles, such as working your whole life in a coal mine will predispose you to an early death, especially compared to a life of picking berries.

So there are differences in hazard. I would like to point out that jobs like working in coal mines are (like most unskilled labour) becoming more and more automated so the danger is reduced. But why should one worker be protected against whatever hazard more than another? Any worker who is injured at work in any way would be entitled to healthcare and support whether they were hurt operating a mining machine or fell picking berries.



If this were the case it would be in a person's best interests to *eschew* the *riskier* work roles, and get by in anything that's *less* risky, like picking berries. Also, no one would want to do any of the gruntwork-type tasks that may objectively exist, because people could just do easier things.

Then the rotational system would apply only to unskilled work so that nobody works in a mine for too long and they would get to do something less risky like picking berries. Assuming that the Capitalists are right in believing that unskilled jobs can be done by anyone.



This is *another* failure of the system -- the markets would have to take up the slack here, and would, for those who are willing to work for and use currency, for the variety of goods that they don't want to have to produce themselves.

Markets? What do you mean? Would markets not cease to exist in socialism?


And how would this 'rotation system' be administrated -- ? In other words, what would be a *socially valid* collection of work roles in rotation, to enable one to partake of the full bounty of society's production -- ? And what if any given grouping of socially valid work roles in rotation *didn't* actually produce enough for the expectations of those who put in their "sufficient" number of hours of work -- ? Finally, would *all* groupings of work roles be socially considered as equivalent, even if those different groupings produced *widely varying* amounts of material output -- ?

Unskilled labour would be in the rotational system(s) I guess. If you can be a postman for a couple months then you can also probably deliver milk and then be a bus driver. Delivery services and transport services perhaps would be in a rotational system for example. And if there is literally nothing special about pick berries or working in a mine, if no special skills are expended doing so, then why can the people who work in a mine not be spared the undesirable conditions a mine for a while and pick berries instead. Of everyone who wants to be a doctor, not all will have the skills and qualifications, there will never be a shortage of unskilled labour. And if there are many more people who want to be doctors and are capable of doing so then I don't see a huge problem - the NHS in the UK is pretty understaffed. One of the biggest arguments against social healthcare is that there are very long waiting times, an influx of doctors would fix this.

[ckaihatsu]

'Purchase' implies 'currency' of some sort, which means that there is no collective political economy or pre-planning around the providing of such goods. It's tantamount to a political *defeat*, an admission of failure on the part of the revolutionary social order since it's having to fall-back to an unplanned, market-based system for that domain of goods.





Exchanged for labour credits then. Everything I say assumes that capital and currency no longer exist.


You're being contradictory here -- it doesn't matter what you call them, if there is any use of vouchers / points / credits / chits / whatever, in exchange for goods, then it's effectively a *commodity system*.

My labor-*hour* credits *preclude* commodification because they're *not* exchangeable for the goods themselves:





[I] have developed a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations.




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


---





I'll also remind that it's not merely cultural elitist, hoity-toity goods that would be in this domain -- it would include *anything* that could not be readily mass produced or d.i.y., including specialty items that may pertain to areas of scientific research, hobbyist cultures, historical interests, and so on.





Are millions and millions of people likely to want these things? If by historical interests you mean ancient artifacts, old manuscripts and the like, would theses items be the possessions of anybody? Wouldn't they be stored in public museums?


Yes, agreed -- the rarest, irreplaceable-type of objects would necessarily be strictly in the public domain, as you're indicating.

But then there's plenty of *other* cultural artifacts -- consumer items from the era of commodity production -- that would be numerous enough for personal possession, and not rare enough to be strictly collectivized. How would *these* goods be handled by such a society, as for some kind of circulation at a specialty convention, perhaps -- ?

Such items couldn't be readily mass-produced, since they're uniquely from a certain historical period, and couldn't be d.i.y., either, for the same reason. A system of barter could not be guaranteed due to the free availability of most things, and also for the logistical difficulties of matching apples-to-oranges. And as soon as you introduce any kind of abstracted valuations like vouchers you are back to the use of currency in a market-type system.





The same would be true of items like famous paintings.


I can't agree here, and this is actually a good example for discussion -- would *all* paintings by *all* publicly-known painters have to be put under public control, or where would the line be drawn as to what could be in personal collections versus being publicly displayed -- ?

Obviously this is the kind of question that a collectivist political economy is exactly for -- that's why I can't answer definitively with a pre-made, set policy position.





Other specialty goods would just have to be ordered, and then prioritized based on who needs them the most
or would find the most use for them - scientific research would be prioritized.


Okay -- I would tend to agree on this point.





And as for hobbyist goods - the people who want such items are going to be limited to the people who would be interested in their use, there would not be a sudden influx in people who want these very specific-use items.


Yes, agreed -- that's the very definition for such. But then how would *these* limited-quantity, personal-possession goods be able to circulate? We're back to the issue of how to avoid slipping back to the use of currency, markets, and, ultimately, commodification, for a domain of such items.


---





This is an admission of incapability -- that even though things like fine wines exist, the revolutionary perspective would be unable to address such empirical realities, according to you. I would wonder who *would* get 'the better stuff', post-revolution, in your view of things.





People who wanted to pay labour credits for it instead of getting worse wine for free.


Well that's commodification, then, since we have to ask how people would get these material-exchangeable points in the first place.







My standing critique [...] is that a 'points system' doesn't go far enough because the question of how points are issued in the first place is intractable:




How would points be assigned to individuals in the first place -- ?

If it's on a strictly across-the-board consistent basis -- say 100 points per person per month -- that would be very egalitarian, but it would be an overall (societal) *disincentive* towards new efforts at greater social coordination and experimental / speculative advancements in research and development.

And, conversely, if *increasing* rates of points could be obtained for increased amounts of work effort, *that* would be tantamount to the commodification of labor, since labor would be directly exchangeable for material rewards -- too close to a capitalistic market economy, in other words.

Part of the reason for using RevLeft so much is precisely for this question of a feasible political-logistical approach to a post-capitalist political economy, and why I've developed my own 'solution' for such, at my blog entry, blah blah blah....





If there is a backlog, surely people are still capable of waiting for things.


And how would society determine who "needs" fine wine more than the next person -- ?





But people probably wouldn't have to wait too long because many would see that there was a queue and just decide to go with the free wine rather than wait for something that they have to pay for.


You're actually *recommending* that public demand be measured in terms of how long people are willing to stand in line -- ?? We can't do better than that -- ?


---





Except for when there *are* differences in the quality of goods, as exists today.





Well, I was talking about jobs not goods - job preference is subjective.


No, neither goods-selection nor jobs-selection are *purely* subjective -- some goods are better than others and some jobs are better than others, across-the-board -- statistics would reveal these patterns. You're not addressing how these inherent mass preferences could be addressed in a consistent way to match-up material quantities to mass demands.


---





Okay, but you're not saying much -- what *I'm* hearing is that 'labor is labor'.





Labour is labour, yes. Why is labour in one form worth more than labour in another


For many, various reasons -- see the 'Pies Must Line Up' illustration from post #6.

(There could be unmet mass demand for certain goods and/or services -- 'consumption' -- or, obversely, maybe there's *not enough* liberated labor to provide for certain services and production of goods.)

If such imbalances are allowed to fester and worsen by any society that claims to be of collectivist pre-planning, then the result will be the obvious incapability of that social order, with an economic backsliding to use and dependence on the former commodity-production system.





So there are differences in hazard. I would like to point out that jobs like working in coal mines are (like most unskilled labour) becoming more and more automated so the danger is reduced.


Yes, agreed -- and a collectivist social order would have a common interest *in* automating all tasks as much as possible so that *no one* has to do *any* kind of dangerous or distasteful work. Collectivist technological development would be incentivized, so as to eliminate gruntwork altogether as an outstanding social / political issue.





But why should one worker be protected against whatever hazard more than another?


Yes, I would ask the same question myself -- how would you address this matter?





Any worker who is injured at work in any way would be entitled to healthcare and support whether they were hurt operating a mining machine or fell picking berries.


Certainly, but that begs the question of why the work roles of mining or picking berries are so hazardous to begin with -- what could a collectivist society do to *eliminate* all dangerous work positions, so that such decisions over staffing could be *precluded* altogether -- ?





Then the rotational system would apply only to unskilled work so that nobody works in a mine for too long and they would get to do something less risky like picking berries. Assuming that the Capitalists are right in believing that unskilled jobs can be done by anyone.


So you're suggesting a *segregation* of unskilled work roles from skilled work roles -- ?


---





Then, I imagine, of all those people, the ones who want berries the most would either settle with picking berries or just go without berries.





This is *another* failure of the system -- the markets would have to take up the slack here, and would, for those who are willing to work for and use currency, for the variety of goods that they don't want to have to produce themselves.





Markets? What do you mean? Would markets not cease to exist in socialism?


You're not understanding -- the whole fucking *world* could be 100% in favor of eliminating capitalism and bringing in socialism, and it wouldn't make any difference at all, if the new system adopted couldn't handle economic / material matters effectively, such as providing berries to those who want berries. In such a case the commodity-production market system would be *better* than having no berries at all.


---





And how would this 'rotation system' be administrated -- ? In other words, what would be a *socially valid* collection of work roles in rotation, to enable one to partake of the full bounty of society's production -- ? And what if any given grouping of socially valid work roles in rotation *didn't* actually produce enough for the expectations of those who put in their "sufficient" number of hours of work -- ? Finally, would *all* groupings of work roles be socially considered as equivalent, even if those different groupings produced *widely varying* amounts of material output -- ?





Unskilled labour would be in the rotational system(s) I guess.


And what about skilled labor -- ? How would you handle this segregation of skilled labor from unskilled labor, and how would these two separate domains be handled / administrated in relation to each other, and in relation to mass demand -- ?




Rotation system of work roles

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





I happen to be *critical* of this -- a model of my own making -- though, because even though it's moneyless, in practice it would tend to be too *inflexible* and *restrictive* for the participants since they would be "stuck" both economically and politically in it, due to the economic aspects and political aspects being *fused together* as one and the same.

(In other words, if everyone in the work-role rotation basically approved of its 'politics' -- what it's producing -- they may *not necessarily* like its *economics*, meaning what they're getting from that production, in regards to their own personal needs. And, obversely, if a participant happened to like the work-role rotation *economically*, meaning what they're getting personally from the group's collective production, they may not also like it *politically*, in terms of that same output for the greater public good. Either way they'd basically be stuck having to "like" the output both on a societal level *and* on a personal level, due to its inherent inflexibility.)


---





If you can be a postman for a couple months then you can also probably deliver milk and then be a bus driver. Delivery services and transport services perhaps would be in a rotational system for example. And if there is literally nothing special about pick berries or working in a mine, if no special skills are expended doing so, then why can the people who work in a mine not be spared the undesirable conditions a mine for a while and pick berries instead. Of everyone who wants to be a doctor, not all will have the skills and qualifications, there will never be a shortage of unskilled labour. And if there are many more people who want to be doctors and are capable of doing so then I don't see a huge problem - the NHS in the UK is pretty understaffed. One of the biggest arguments against social healthcare is that there are very long waiting times, an influx of doctors would fix this.

[Devrim]

As a Socialist/Communist I have always encountered the typical "binman - doctor" argument (always that exact example as if it has been beamed into peoples' minds).

I am middle aged. I have been involved with revolutionary politics since I was a teenager. During this time nobody has ever addressed me with this argument.

Devrim

[Red Star Rising]

I am middle aged. I have been involved with revolutionary politics since I was a teenager. During this time nobody has ever addressed me with this argument.

Devrim

Lucky you I suppose then. Are you accusing me of lying or what?
Generally it is the younger people who don't exactly have a proper understanding of communism who call upon this argument - they look at the world through a very capitalist lens.

[Devrim]

Lucky you I suppose then. Are you accusing me of lying or what?
Generally it is the younger people who don't exactly have a proper understanding of communism who call upon this argument - they look at the world through a very capitalist lens.

No, of course I am not a using you of lying.

Perhaps though you are discussing with the wrong people.

Surely communist intervention should be aimed at workers in struggle. I don't think there is much point in just debating with random people as many of the posters on here seem to spend their time doing.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

I am middle aged. I have been involved with revolutionary politics since I was a teenager. During this time nobody has ever addressed me with this argument.

Devrim

I think that's very interesting actually. I think that goes to show, if anything the unchallenged hegemony of bourgeois ideology today as a result of the absence of affirmative class struggle.

[Dave B]

I think when analysing wage differentials and wage labour as a commodity from a Marxist perspectives there are theoretical caveats.

They are; that it assumes that wage labour and particular types of wage labour eg computer programming and lorry driving (or specific labour power as a commodities, concrete labour) are exchanging at their ‘natural price’ which is when ‘supply equals demand’.

We can actually for the moment drop the Marxist analysis and just make empirical observations.

If a capitalist computer software company is producing computer programmes they need to buy the labour power of computer programmers and sell the product for more than it cost them to buy the labour power.

That is all there is to it as far as the capitalist is concerned.

It is a nice simple example as it isn’t that cluttered up with raw materials and fixed capital etc.

(software houses employ little fixed capital and I will return to a nice real example of that later)

If there is or was a shortage of computer programmers then demand exceeds supply and computer programming as a particular commodity commands a higher price, or wages than say driving lorries.

(I will deal with Doctors and bin-men later.)

Bollocks to theory what happens or happened in the real world to real workers?

The thing is lorry drivers and computer programmers as workers mix and share experiences of their own ‘abstract labour’.

So we have a Manchester computer programmer (contractor) 10 years ago who ‘wouldn’t get out of bed for less than £30 an hour’, the norm, but would consider £60 an hour in London.

The lorry driver thinks that this computer programming thing is something anyone could do gets his friends to give him some personal training and fake cv’s; which is the norm in the computing industry it seems, and off he successfully goes.

That is not to say that the increased supply of computer programmers has been at the only at expense of the supply British lorry driving labour power.

Apparently these ex Indian peasants form Mumbai and Calcutta take to computer programming like ducks to water, especially at less than £5 an hour.

I know several people with long experience and not just Johnny come lately’s who used to earn three times what I get that are now earning less.

What drives it isn’t just money I think.

Computer programming seems ‘easier’ or as easy, as the abstract labour, than lorry driving.

It might be possible with a glut of computer programmers that coal miners might earn more; but the differential might have to be considerable before these ‘office workers’ felt economically compelled to seek better paid physical or manual work.

There has been an obvious and recent shift due to technological developments from the demand for manual labour power to an ‘intellectual one’.

So there are ex pure grunts and manual workers in my place who now, against their ‘natural’, reading age of 12 ‘gifts’ and propensities, are operating software from computer terminals that run robot machines.

I think that leads to the pernicious other ‘doctors versus bin-men’ argument the details of which of often hidden.

The general argument is first as a kind of predicate is that ‘intellectual labour’ or pursuits are qualitatively more ‘important’ than manual labour.

So are the ‘work’ or pursuits of philosophers, poets, and arsehole intellectuals more ‘important’ than that of bin-men per se?

Something that can be reflected, or not, economically.

Or is that intellectually labour is in short supply, has a high demand and is more important and has a higher status; just because it commands a higher price?

The counter argument is that humanity has a natural spread of abilities both intellectual and physical and we have our weedy geeks and our stupid body builders with good hand eye coordination etc; the very fortunate having both.

And the intellectual demands of modern society has met with a shortfall or in-balance in what humanity can supply; with the ‘capitalist’ consequences of remuneration and separately, and following on from that, prejudiced qualitative differential social value judgements on work performed.

I doubt it.

[Devrim]

I think that's very interesting actually. I think that goes to show, if anything the unchallenged hegemony of bourgeois ideology today as a result of the absence of affirmative class struggle.

I think it is probably connected to three things; 1)Location-I presume the OP is American. I am not and have lived in places where the level of class struggle is higher, and which don't have the extreme anti-socialist ideology that the US does. 2)Age-I am probably older. The working class is weaker today that it was when I was first involved in political activity. 3)Inclination-I don't have any abstract discussions with right-wingers about 'socialism'.

Devrim

[Red Star Rising]

I think it is probably connected to three things; 1)Location-I presume the OP is American. I am not and have lived in places where the level of class struggle is higher, and which don't have the extreme anti-socialist ideology that the US does. 2)Age-I am probably older. The working class is weaker today that it was when I was first involved in political activity. 3)Inclination-I don't have any abstract discussions with right-wingers about 'socialism'.

Devrim

British actually.

[Rafiq]

I think it is probably connected to three things; 1)Location-I presume the OP is American. I am not and have lived in places where the level of class struggle is higher, and which don't have the extreme anti-socialist ideology that the US does. 2)Age-I am probably older. The working class is weaker today that it was when I was first involved in political activity. 3)Inclination-I don't have any abstract discussions with right-wingers about 'socialism'.

Devrim

True, though I think the underlying problem is that these are generally the kinds of arguments told to students in American high school in the various history, civics and economics etc. based classes. It kind of floats around as "common knowledge" by everyone, right wing or not.

[Red Star Rising]

3)Inclination-I don't have any abstract discussions with right-wingers about 'socialism'.

Devrim

I wouldn't really call them right-wingers. Mainly the "My God! YOU'RE A COMMUNIST?!?!? Wait, what's Communism?" people. In which case our age difference would be the main factor.

[Lowtech]

I have always either responded with "to each according to his DEED, until the higher stage of Communism which would be to each according to his NEED"

I appreciate your reasoning here. Although rather than taloring the the economy to accomidate existing jobs, jobs would be redesigned as skill sets that better suit an economy functioning per it's intended purpose as a public utility/infrastructure.


or said that more menial jobs would be handled by a rotational system or a lottery or something.

Although a meanial job is one that costs more in time and stress than it provides in personal/social benefit. Skill sets designed around most necissary parts of infrastructure would be inheriently less "menial."


But what exactly does to each according to his deed mean? I have never quite been clear on this. Marx said that all human labour in whatever form had the common quality of being the embodiment human labour power

Working for mutual benefit is hardly a deed but rather a cultural recognition that we are all interdependent. In nomadic cultures, being able to share work and maintain readiness to move as a group was more of a family dynamic rather than "jobs" or "deeds." Labor defines the strength of us as a whole rather than a means to measure superiority among individuals.


therefore, a job that is deemed 3 times as valuable as another is simply a measurably intensified form of human labour power - 1 hour of a doctor's labour contains as much undifferentiated human labour power.

deemed more valuable? Are you implying it is subjective? In actuality, if a skill set is "more valuable" that means more people are needed to fill that role. The occupation of a doctor really only exists because it creates exclusivity. only in a capitalist society is medical technology and knowledge hoarded to increase demand via artificial scarcity (and inturn profits). Medical skills would be held almost universally; every individual would be adept in basic to intermediate medical care/aid. more advanced skill sets will be available but there would in no way be the eclusivity of "doctors" as we see it today.


Does this mean that a brain surgeon would still be "paid" more than a binman under Socialism (but would still be unable to invest in business property ownership etc.)

not sure what you mean by paid more. in actuality, most precise medical proceedures will eventually be done by robotics. medical care currently, like all other profitized industries, is designed around exclusivity and maximizing profits. when such skill sets are designed to maximize availability and overall efficiency in providing the benefit of the skill itself, unimpeded by schemes to maximize profits, there won't be higher pay, but rather more available positions of the "valuable" skill set.


I don't quite understand how this works, and I want to understand it as much as possible seeing as it is such a common capitalist argument. .

Capitalism assumes subjectivity and exclusivity to be an axiom of economics. It assumes people require money to understand the merit of their deeds. it is wrong in every case.