Semi-communism - Is compromise possible?

[honest intellectual]

Communism: Everyone makes £10000 a year

Capitalism: People can make any amount of money from nothing ad infinitum

I see room for a middle ground semi-communism: People can make between £5000 and £15000 a year.

Whaddaya think?

[honest intellectual]

The Licinian land laws in the Roman empire were brought in in 376 BC. They stated that nobody could own more than 500 jugera of land (I have no idea how much that is) plus 100 jugera for each of his two eldest sons.
If anyone had more than their maximum quota, the extra land was confiscated and given to landless peasants in 30 jugera lots

Needless to say, the patrician nobility prevented these laws from ever being iimplemented

[Anarcho]

There are price caps in place on professional atheletes.

However, most of them manage to make significantly more than the maximum allowed. Part of it is endorsment, and if someone is stupid enough to buy a shoe based on who does commercials for it, then they deserve to lose the money.

But part of it is in perks. A paid for apartment. A car. Wardrobe.

Big Company managers get this too. Even if Dick Brown (Head of EDS, one of the biggest IT businesses out there) says he won't take a raise this year, he's still going to get some stock options, just 'cause he's the boss.

Meanwhile, people from EDS are getting dropped like flies, and raises are being held ( see www.edslawsuits.com ) and folks are getting angry.

This sort of behavior is what keeps things from being a middle ground, and is the classic example of what is wrong with business today.

[antitrot]

Communism: Everyone makes £10000 a year

Er... first off, you're talking about, by definition anyway, Socialism -- not communism. Second, I have no idea where this crazy idea everyone gets paid the same under Socialism came from but it's not true... not in basic theory or practice anyway. Not only does it make no sense what-so-ever but runs along the same lines as Socialists "want to take all the wealth and redistribute it." What the hell? That's like the big red "reset" button the Capitalist machine.

So anyway, let's take the 1930's Socialist Soviet economy. Soviet workers were paid on levels. The tiers varied from industry to industry but the trade unions collectively bargained with the state, not the management. Since the state was reliant on the happiness of workers, it was more then willing to use incentives in the system of tiers. This included everything from a pay raise, to a vacation, to an award. You may have started off at the same wage in your industry, but that's just like minimum wage. The difference is there was also something of a "maximum wage" in the Soviet economy. Something like you were talking about but different.

Well anyway, I wasn't dissin' ya man, just thought I'd let you know. :)

[honest intellectual]

So anyway, let's take the 1930's Socialist Soviet economy. Soviet workers were paid on levels. The tiers varied from industry to industry but the trade unions collectively bargained with the state, not the management. Since the state was reliant on the happiness of workers, it was more then willing to use incentives in the system of tiers. This included everything from a pay raise, to a vacation, to an award.
That's not the same thing as communism. Under that system (similar to what exists in parts of China now), a person's earnings are based on their work, which is like a 'nicer' version of capitalism. It is how the cappies here say capitalism works, but whatever it is, it's neither communism nor socialism.
Anyway, as I've said before, I think thyere is no need for money in an advanced communist state.

[antitrot]

First thing I said was you're not describing communism. You're describing Socialism.

Anyway, the Soviet economy was indeed Socialist but I agree, their system of wages was drawing off Capitalism. There are three differences I can think of though.

1) The first should be the most obvious. If you worked hard, you were actually rewarded. It was literally criminal not to be awarded for hard work. It was the closest thing to an actual Meritocracy at the time that I can think of. With Capitalism, you're promised nothing for hard work but maybe a few cents raise.

2) Worker's control at factory level. Worker's had immense control of the factory conditions and union policies. To quote...

"Here are no bosses to drive fear into the workers. No one to drive them in mad speed-ups. Here the workers are in control. Even the shop superintendent had no more right in these meetings than any other worker. I have witnessed many times already when the superintendent spoke too long. The workers in the hall decided he had already consumed enough time and the floor was given to a lathe hand to who told of his problems and offered suggestions. Imagine this at Ford or Briggs. This is what the outside world calls the "ruthless dictatorship in Russia." I tell you ... in all countries we have thus far been in we have never found such genuine proletarian democracy..." -Walter Reuther, later the anti-Communist president of the United Auto Workers, who worked in a Soviet auto factory in the 1930s.

3) Workers control of national planning. Workers, through the trade unions, were firmly in control of the national planning. For more on this, go here (http://antitrot.tripod.com/articles/srt/sovewage.htm)

Those are the three most obvious features where it differs -- heavily -- from Capitalism. It's not hard to find others.

[CheGuevara]

As long as someone's making a profit off of someone else's labor, it's still capitalist. As long as people are still working for monetary reward, it's still socialism.

[antitrot]

Here's an interesting one for you. What if a group you are part of collectively benefits from your work? Is it Capitalist?

[CheGuevara]

No, not at all. That's why free enterprise(well, not exactly "free enterprise" I don't know exactly what you would call it; maybe something like a non-governmental cooperative) can exist under socialism, and to a more limited sense in a communist society.

(Edited by CheGuevara at 2:25 am on April 15, 2002)

[RedRevolutionary87]

no no no, comprimise is by no means acceptable! all wage labour must be abolished, along with currency, workers houldnt work to get paid, but instead should work for the good of society, and in return are provided with what they need

[CheGuevara]

Socialism is the necessary transition stage. Even if you believe people can go right from being profit to community good motivated, you still have to keep it temporarily because you're a socialist-communist economy in a capitalist world.

[RedRevolutionary87]

i understand what you mean che, but there are other ways, my comrade and i are working on a sort of manifesto if you will, and we have thought about that, i dont feel like explaning the whole thing, we basicly thought that ifyou take currency you take away the need for capitalist type trade, instead we plan on trading with no taxs but only aquiring what is needed and nothing that the state can produce domesticly, this way the state can still compete but will have no need to compromise

[antitrot]

Che - Ok, just checkin. On your other post: Socialism is a transition stage. It's necessity is debatable.

Red - I was implying material benefit, not monetary.

[CheGuevara]

Ah, ok. AntiTrot, are you by any chance a member of the PLP(not a bad thing, I actually have a certain amount of respect for the PLP when compared with most other 'leftist' parties)? I got the impression you might be by your posts.

[antitrot]

Yup. Just joined a few weeks ago. I was going with the PLP or the RCPUSA. Since I'm not a big fan of Avakian though, I decided the PLP was better all around suited to me.

I'm pretty chill with most of the other left with the exception of anything I see as opportunist. Hence the name since I perceive most, if not all, of the Trotskyist movement as useless and opportunist. A big growing tumor on the side of the revolutionary left.

I should know, I was part of it for several years!

[RedRevolutionary87]

lol anti i didnt disagree with any of your statements..
anyways yes if you are a part of the group it isnt capitalist, unless you benifit from the labour of others that are not part of the group