Everyone's work is equal in worth...

[Robespierre2.0]

I totally believe in this, but it is SO FRUSTRATING trying to convince a capitalist. Please help, because It'd probably be better for me to prove them wrong through argument rather than just shooting the fucker like I want to.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 02:17 pm
I totally believe in this, but it is SO FRUSTRATING trying to convince a capitalist. Please help, because It'd probably be better for me to prove them wrong through argument rather than just shooting the fucker like I want to.
Good luck trying to convince anyone with that argument. Marx himself didn't even put forth such nonsense. From Das Kapital (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1) (Chapter 1, Section 1):

"Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value."

In Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm), Marx makes a similar distinction, point out that "equal rights" are categorically unequal. Equality stems from using a common standard, as opposed to actually insuring physical equality:

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. "

[BobKKKindle$]

The production of any good is a social activity, requiring the contribution and cooperation of many workers inside the workplace in addition to the support of society as a whole, and as such it is unfair that skilled workers should be accorded higher wages, as, in the absence of workers responsible for basic tasks, their labour would serve no purpose or would not be possible. The example of doctors and cleaners in a hospital demonstrates this.

In addition, skilled work is not synonymous with or indicative of greater effort; spending time learning is, in comparison to the labour workers across the world endure from an early age, a fairly leisurely experience.

[BobKKKindle$]

Good luck trying to convince anyone with that argument.

I think the poster meant 'of equal worth' from an ethical perspective, not in terms of Marxian economics.

[Robespierre2.0]

Yes, I oversimplified the concept, but you know what I mean.
What I usually get is the "brain surgeon who studied his ass off" shouldn't be paid as much as the "kid flipping burgers".

Now I know, nobody will be paid EXACTLY the same, but there's no reason for massive disparities in income.

Any other effective criticisms of this Horatio Alger rags-to-riches bullshit would be appreciated.

[Killer Enigma]

Now I know, nobody will be paid EXACTLY the same, but there's no reason for massive disparities in income.
Disparity in income is not the problem. The trouble arises from private property, in which those with disproportionatly high incomes are able to purchase the means of production and then exploit labor. Financial incentives will be necessary for certain jobs, as they have been in every other epoch of history. The difference is that socialism eliminates the exploitative element.

[Robespierre2.0]

I see what you're saying...

Even so, can you explain the thing about financial incentives more? I kinda thought that under socialism, accumulation of wealth wasn't a big deal, as people would naturally want to work if they weren't exploited. I thought that, if we knew our work was for our own benefit and that of our fellow man, and that we would be provided with everything we need to live, the amount of money we make wouldn't be an issue.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 03:13 pm
I see what you're saying...

Even so, can you explain the thing about financial incentives more? I kinda thought that under socialism, accumulation of wealth wasn't a big deal, as people would naturally want to work if they weren't exploited. I thought that, if we knew our work was for our own benefit and that of our fellow man, and that we would be provided with everything we need to live, the amount of money we make wouldn't be an issue.
I would imagine that self-motivation would play a larger role than it does today if people were allowed to choose their occupations. I personally know many individuals who absolutely love to clean. As absurd as this sounds, they find joy in organization and tidiness. However, such an occupation, in most conventional settings, does not provide a good enough salary to meet their needs and thus they forgo the opportunity to work such a job.

Granted, this applies to only some cases. If, like many on this board advocate, everyone is allowed to work "whatever job they want" and that somehow this will motivate them, there will undoubtedly be a shortage of jobs in some areas. Though I would say that most doctors leave medical school less concerned with the monetary assets of the job than they are about helping patients, money, like it or not, is what prompts many to go to medical school in the first place. Many jobs require years of research and education and, for better or worse, there must be some incentive.

Remember though, financial incentives have motivated human beings to work throughout history (amongst other factors). It isn't as though wages are solely a capitalist concept. Certainly wealth distribution as a whole will be more equitable than it is now (via progressive taxation) but there will be disparities in income amongst individuals.

The trap is to believe that socialism promises literal equality. Socialism brings with it equal right for workers to receive the full product of their labor, but because human beings and certain types of labor are categorically unequal, it stands that inequality will continue to be present*. The difference, though, is that without the opportunity to accumulate capital and private property, the exploitative element associated with income disparity is eliminated.

*Consider the following: We have a right to free speech. Perhaps though, you are a better orator than I am. Though we have an equal opportunity and right to express our views and opinions, you will be more effective at it than I will because you are more gifted in oration. Though we are held to an equal standard, the inherent inequality in the abilities of man prevent us from being exactly the same.

[Raúl Duke]

In communism what should I expect?
(Everyone is only mentioning socialist economics.)

From what I know, it would be "From each according to ability, to each according to need." so basically everyone would have equal (or somewhat equal) access to the distribution of goods and their will no longer be money/wages.

[Robespierre2.0]

OK, I think I'm beginning to grasp it better.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what you're talking about, right?

Socialist Inequality = People are always inequal due to differences in natural talent. Obviously the person who does more work or works in a needed profession would be compensated more. However, without private property, they would be unable to profit from the work of others. We're more arguing for an equal playing field than anything else, right? Is that still considered egalitarian?

I realise there must disparities in income, but they won't be as large as they are under the capitalist system, right? Even though a nuclear physicist's work is more valuable than a common factory worker, it'd feel wrong for the physicist to make three times as much money as the factory worker for the same hours.


Arg... well this changes everything (I've been making the wrong arguments for socialism the whole time!). How should I go about arguing with these elitist white-collar capitalists?

I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but it's important for me to correctly understand socialism if I'm going to be fighting for it the rest of my life. Your answers have been extremely helpful, so thanks a lot for that.

[YSR]

Well, I think the arguments that are being advanced are fucked up. No, I categorically reject the idea that certain workers should make more money than others.


Originally posted by Marxosaurus
Even though a nuclear physicist's work is more valuable than a common factory worker, it'd feel wrong for the physicist to make three times as much money as the factory worker for the same hours.

Really? If the factor worker didn't work their job, the nuclear physicist wouldn't have the materials to work theirs. All workers are necessary. If their position is not necessary, it will not exist in a socialist economy (ie lawyers, advertising, etc). Starting from the fact that all workers are equally important, it stands to reason that they should all be compensated the same. Or no one should be compensated, if we'd like to use to true communist ideal.

As to the "brain surgeon" critique: our education systems discourage learning in favor of teaching how to be good, quiet wage-slaves. Our education needs to be totally rebuilt, encouraging learning for its own sake. I know plenty of people at the college I attend who are becoming brain surgeon because they want to, not because of the money. By socially valorizing necessary labor, we will ensure that those positions get filled.

Some of the positions being put forward by Killer Enigma strike me as being unjust. While clearly "true equality," meaning equality of abilitiy, is impossible, I don't think that means that equality of income is. He seems to be arguing for a less exploitative economic sphere. Which is fine, I guess, but I think that we as communists should be arguing for an economic sphere without exploitation at all.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 02:35 pm
Yes, I oversimplified the concept, but you know what I mean.
What I usually get is the "brain surgeon who studied his ass off" shouldn't be paid as much as the "kid flipping burgers".
As long as we live in a capitalist society, and people are paid for their labour force, a brain surgeon must be paid more than a "kid flipping burgers".

As any commodity, the value of labour force is proportional to the labour put in its production.

It takes a lot more labour to produce a brain surgeon than to produce a burger flipper.

The only way to avoid that is to stop paying people wages, and renouncing the market as the main instrument of resource alocation.

But I don't think you will be able to explain that to a capitalist.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 03:13 pm
people would naturally want to work if they weren't exploited. I thought that, if we knew our work was for our own benefit and that of our fellow man, and that we would be provided with everything we need to live, the amount of money we make wouldn't be an issue.
Which is beautiful, and probably valid if by work we mean the work of a physician, an engineer, a scientist, an artist. But if your work is to collect garbage, never mind how much you earn at it, it's no longer the case that you are being "provided with everything [you] need to live": you are already being denied the satisfaction of creative labour.

Luís Henrique

[syndicat]

There is a distinction between the value of a person's work and their effort. The value of their work depends upon their doing things that are valued, desired, by people. But there is no reason people should be paid according to the value of their work. For one thing, the ability of your work to have a certain value in terms of its desireability by consumers of the products depends on the work of others and on other factors not under your control, like the investment in the plant.

Large variation in income currently isn't due only to private ownership of means of production, tho those who receive the highest incomes do have property income. People who have a relative monopoly of other forms of power in social production, such as decision-making authority, doing key types of design or conceptual tasks, also have sufficient power to exact higher incomes. And not only under capitalism. In the old Soviet Union the managerial elite made 4.5 times what the average worker made.

in a classless economic system workers might decide to pay each other to do work in order to ensure an adequate incentive that people do socially useful work. thus abolition of money and prices are not a necessary condition for the abolition of the class system.

[Killer Enigma]

Socialist Inequality = People are always inequal due to differences in natural talent. Obviously the person who does more work or works in a needed profession would be compensated more. However, without private property, they would be unable to profit from the work of others. We're more arguing for an equal playing field than anything else, right? Is that still considered egalitarian?
You have it entirely correct. Marx made the point in Critique of the Gotha Programme, a text which unfortunately is ignored, or at least under-analyzed, by many "socialists". Equality of wealth is a red herring. Socialism aims to end the exploitation connected with capital and raise the workers to the position of ruling class.


I realise there must disparities in income, but they won't be as large as they are under the capitalist system, right? Even though a nuclear physicist's work is more valuable than a common factory worker, it'd feel wrong for the physicist to make three times as much money as the factory worker for the same hours.
Many on this board advocate a position that all labor is equally valuable because without the common factory worker, the nuclear physicist would not be able to work. While this is true, such a claim ignores the difference between skilled and unskilled labor. The labor which requires more skill and more preparation may not be any more valuable in terms of society functioning (though I disagree with this) but it undeniably is more difficult to replace. Like it or not, the labor of a factory worker is easier to replace should s/he go ill or die as opposed to the labor of a nuclear physicist. Therein lies much of the reasoning behind income disparity.

The logistics and actual manifestation of such disparities will reflect the material conditions under which such a system emerges.


Arg... well this changes everything (I've been making the wrong arguments for socialism the whole time!). How should I go about arguing with these elitist white-collar capitalists?
Clearly your arguments are not flawed. You have simply approach and supported them in a less-advantageous manner. When I have made similar mistakes, often it buys credibility to admit that you were wrong on a certain facet of theory but have now corrected your mistake.

Moreover, you could also say that ideally the system you proposed originally would reign supreme but because of practical realities, these amendments need to be made. In this sense, you have (1) not lied, as ideally there would be no need for money, salaries, etc. and you have (2) not contradicted yourself.


I know I'm asking a lot of questions, but it's important for me to correctly understand socialism if I'm going to be fighting for it the rest of my life. Your answers have been extremely helpful, so thanks a lot for that.
It's encouraging to see you actively seeking to learn more about the idea you advocate. Believe it or not, I have had conversations with people on this board to which I have been met with "I don't need to read about x because it's a waste of my time." Part of good debate is thoroughly researching a matter so you are prepared to respond to issues which may arise.

I am still learning, too. Everyone should be, though sadly not everyone is. May I suggest as a next step, sort of a follow up to our discussion, you look over (if you haven't before) "Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm)"? It's appeal comes from Marx's responses to similar misconceptions raised by other "socialists", like the issue of income distribution. It clarified many concepts for me.

[TC]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 02:17 pm
I totally believe in this, but it is SO FRUSTRATING trying to convince a capitalist.
Err, as it should be, given that you're wrong. Clearly you *want* it to be true, but you have no basis to argue that, work is not all equal.

I suggest you read Capital Volume 1 instead of just making utopian socialist claims. Real marxist economics is compelling, utopian socialism is only compelling to people who are predisposed to wanting to believe in it, like religion.

[Robespierre2.0]

Originally posted by TragicClown+October 20, 2007 08:33 pm--> (TragicClown @ October 20, 2007 08:33 pm)
Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 02:17 pm
I totally believe in this, but it is SO FRUSTRATING trying to convince a capitalist.
Err, as it should be, given that you're wrong. Clearly you *want* it to be true, but you have no basis to argue that, work is not all equal.

I suggest you read Capital Volume 1 instead of just making utopian socialist claims. Real marxist economics is compelling, utopian socialism is only compelling to people who are predisposed to wanting to believe in it, like religion. [/b]
Well pardon me for my mistake then. No need to be condescending.

And FYI I am muddling through Capital, and I'll admit I find a lot of it hard to understand.

[black magick hustla]

The value of a commodity is based by the labor power invested into it. Unless the commodity is abolished, an engineer will be objectively worth more than a garbage collector.

I don't think that is the fundamental problem of capitalism though. The fundamental problem is private property, not people having different wages. The problem is that there is someone extracting surplus value from the people who produce the commodities.

I don't think socialism means the abolition of money. Socialism is a transition, and as such, you can't expect commodities to dissappear unless there is an international revolution and market dynamics throughout the world dissappear. There is no problem if a brain surgeon gets paid more if everyone has equal access to the same quality education and everyone is raised in a healthy enviroment where they can develop freely.

[Aurora]

I suggest you read Capital Volume 1 instead of just making utopian socialist claims. Real marxist economics is compelling, utopian socialism is only compelling to people who are predisposed to wanting to believe in it, like religion.

Its utopian to think that someone can pick up Capital and read it through understanding everything.A more sensible idea would be to read some easier economic works first

[BobKKKindle$]

I reject the idea that differences in income that are not the result of ownership of productive assets should be accorded legitimacy. I opposse all forms of income inequality, including those based on the division of labour.

Can someone please explain why someone who has spend an extended period of time learning warrants a higher income than someone who is just as important, but performs a different form of labour?


The value of a commodity is based by the labor power invested into it. Unless the commodity is abolished, an engineer will be objectively worth more than a garbage collector.

This debate has is concerned with fairness; an ethical way of distributing society's resources. Unless you think the objective value of labour as a commodity (which presupposes the existence of a market for labour) should serve as a basis for different renumeration, the labour theory of value is of no relevance to this member's concern.


Really? If the factor worker didn't work their job, the nuclear physicist wouldn't have the materials to work theirs. All workers are necessary.

Young Stupid Radical, we are in agreement, I made this argument in my first post. 'it is unfair that skilled workers should be accorded higher wages, as, in the absence of workers responsible for basic tasks, their labour would serve no purpose or would not be possible'

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:19 am


Can someone please explain why someone who has spend an extended period of time learning warrants a higher income than someone who is just as important, but performs a different form of labour?


Because of the labor invested to it. It is just basic marxist economics.

Exploitation of the proletariat objectively happens because surplus value is extracted from their labor. If you ditch that the Labor Theory of Value therefore you ditch the fact that the proletariat is exploited.


Unless a socialist society shuts off from the international market this is a question it will have to deal with.

[TC]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 09:34 pm
and I'll admit I find a lot of it hard to understand.
What parts are hard to understand? Its probably better to go to secondary sources on bits you can't understand than reading without understanding it (which is kindof a waste of time).




Can someone please explain why someone who has spend an extended period of time learning warrants a higher income than someone who is just as important, but performs a different form of labour?


Because their labour output is labour in a higher concentration of value as the amount of time they spent training they were being supported by other labourers. This is to say, that it takes more total work to produce an hour of a doctors time than an hour of a truck drivers time, because more time has to be invested in preparation for performing a medical operation than for driving a truck.

This is part of the labour theory of value; similarly, an ounce of gold is priced much higher than an ounce of coal because it takes the same miners much longer to produce an ounce of gold than an ounce of coal; the amount of labour time per ounce is greater.


Having said that, there are also additional market factors and socio-political ones given the nature of finance capitalist economies that also impact on price (it is not a one to one correlation because the rate of exploitation, degree of reinvestment both personal and collectively, transaction rates both between currency and purchasing power over geography within a common currency, etc)

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 02:17 pm
I totally believe in this, but it is SO FRUSTRATING trying to convince a capitalist. Please help, because It'd probably be better for me to prove them wrong through argument rather than just shooting the fucker like I want to.
its precisely this argument which convinced me that socialism cannot survive without technocracy.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 02:17 pm
I totally believe in this, but it is SO FRUSTRATING trying to convince a capitalist. Please help, because It'd probably be better for me to prove them wrong through argument rather than just shooting the fucker like I want to.
A capitalist has absolutely no grounds for arguing over the value of work. What is to be said of a system where one can make a better living producing dildos than feeding a population simply because that's how the market operates? There may be some individuals who would resort to feasting off of humans rather than giving up their sex tools, but that's exactly what socialism argues. The value of one's labor is subjective. During the early stages of socialism the worth of labor would be determined democratically; during the latter stages, or communism, the worth of labor would be determined by the individual.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 02:35 pm
Yes, I oversimplified the concept, but you know what I mean.
What I usually get is the "brain surgeon who studied his ass off" shouldn't be paid as much as the "kid flipping burgers".

Now I know, nobody will be paid EXACTLY the same, but there's no reason for massive disparities in income.

Any other effective criticisms of this Horatio Alger rags-to-riches bullshit would be appreciated.
The arguement is, unless the kid enjoys flipping burgers he shouldn't have that position in the first place.

[Robespierre2.0]

Originally posted by TragicClown+October 21, 2007 06:20 pm--> (TragicClown @ October 21, 2007 06:20 pm)
Marxosaurus [email protected] 20, 2007 09:34 pm
and I'll admit I find a lot of it hard to understand.
What parts are hard to understand? Its probably better to go to secondary sources on bits you can't understand than reading without understanding it (which is kindof a waste of time).
[/b]
Uhhh... well the whole first section concerning commodities is pretty tough to grasp. However, someone suggested to me that it's better to read the other sections (II-VIII) first. And yes, it would be bad to read it without understanding it- which is why I've been stuck reading the first chapter over and over again.