Does everybody get the same pay in socialist society? [Archive]

Unicorn

18th April 2008, 01:03

"No, they do not. The skilled worker gets more than the unskilled; the manager gets more than the workman; the great musician gets more than the average musician; the farmer who produces 400 bushels of wheat gets more than the farmer who produces zoo; the miner who digs eight tons of coal gets more than the miner who digs six; and so on. People are paid according to the quality and quantity of their work.

The person who receives even the largest income in socialist society can continue to receive it only so long as he continues to earn it through work. He cannot ever convert it into unearned income by buying the means of production and then living on the labor of others. He cannot buy the means of production for the excellent reason that in socialist society the means of production belong to the people and are not for sale. The higher pay he receives by dint of harder or better work enables him to live better than others who earn less; but his higher pay does not enable him to exploit anyone else.

Though there is inequality of pay in socialist society, there is equality of opportunity. Though skilled workers get higher pay, unskilled workers have ready access to the training and experience necessary to become skilled; though administrators, engineers, writers, artists get higher pay, free education for all in proportion to their ability to learn opens wide the entrance doors to these professions. And "all" in socialist society means exactly that—it does not mean all who can afford to pay the fees, or all whose manners are beyond reproach, or all who are not blacks or Jews."

Huberman and Sweezy, "Introduction to Socialism," Monthly Review

Many people have incorrect beliefs about this question so I posted this to correct them. In a socialist society working harder or advancing in career means earning more money. The incentive to work is good. The difference to a capitalist society is that there is no bourgeois class which lives on the labor of others but does no productive work. In a socialist society economic growth is more rapid because everyone works and the idle rich don't exist.

pusher robot

18th April 2008, 01:29

People are paid according to the quality and quantity of their work.

Can the quantity ever be too much?

What is quality?

Comrade Rage

18th April 2008, 01:34

What is quality?Quality of performance?

luxemburg89

18th April 2008, 02:23

the great musician gets more than the average musician

That's not Socialism, that's shit.

I despair sometimes that idiots attempt to define artists in terms of greatness. I think Bob Dylan is a better musician than Slash from Guns 'n' fucking Roses but is he a better guitar player? Do you agree? Art is subjective and should be respected in its forms equally as each form, each taste each spec of paint, each note, each word of a poem is fucking DIFFERENT. No musician is really greater than another - only how they are perceived. It is a bourgeois idea that some music can be classified as greater than others, as Socialists we should surely respect all art forms?

RGacky3

18th April 2008, 03:08

I despair sometimes that idiots attempt to define artists in terms of greatness. I think Bob Dylan is a better musician than Slash from Guns 'n' fucking Roses but is he a better guitar player? Do you agree? Art is subjective and should be respected in its forms equally as each form, each taste each spec of paint, each note, each word of a poem is fucking DIFFERENT. No musician is really greater than another - only how they are perceived. It is a bourgeois idea that some music can be classified as greater than others, as Socialists we should surely respect all art forms?

I have to agrree its stupid to say one form of music is better than another objectively. Its not a bourgeois or Socialist thing, its a common sense thing.

The Socialism Unicorn is talking about is'nt the type of Socialism I want, where a couple people "choose" pay based on what they percieve as quality or whatever, thats not genuine socialism, in genuine socialism 'pay' is democratic, infact ultimately I don't even think there would be pay, why, if reasorces are common property.

This idea people have of trying to map out a Socialist society never works, because it presumese that one or a couple poeple would have the authority to map it out and impliment it, which goes against the core of Socialism.

Schrödinger's Cat

18th April 2008, 07:28

I have to agrree its stupid to say one form of music is better than another objectively. Its not a bourgeois or Socialist thing, its a common sense thing.

The Socialism Unicorn is talking about is'nt the type of Socialism I want, where a couple people "choose" pay based on what they percieve as quality or whatever, thats not genuine socialism, in genuine socialism 'pay' is democratic, infact ultimately I don't even think there would be pay, why, if reasorces are common property.

This idea people have of trying to map out a Socialist society never works, because it presumese that one or a couple poeple would have the authority to map it out and impliment it, which goes against the core of Socialism.

Indeed.

Unicorn

18th April 2008, 08:15

That's not Socialism, that's shit.

I despair sometimes that idiots attempt to define artists in terms of greatness. I think Bob Dylan is a better musician than Slash from Guns 'n' fucking Roses but is he a better guitar player? Do you agree? Art is subjective and should be respected in its forms equally as each form, each taste each spec of paint, each note, each word of a poem is fucking DIFFERENT. No musician is really greater than another - only how they are perceived. It is a bourgeois idea that some music can be classified as greater than others, as Socialists we should surely respect all art forms?
What are you talking about? Even in a socialist society artists must be compensated for their work. They can't sell concert tickets or records so the state must award stipends to the artists.

Obviously, the state cannot award stipends to every guy who paints or plays a guitar. The stipends will be of different size. Artists who produce art or music which is most popular or of highest quality are compensated best. The greatest star of the Bolshoi Theatre is better paid than some obscure folk artist.

apathy maybe

18th April 2008, 08:51

Define socialist.

Are you talking about a state where there is a government that controls the economy? My guess is that you are.

However, around here, a log of people use the word in a much broader sense. That is, they include a whole slew of ideologies to the left and far left of capitalism. This includes class-less state-less communism, and all the variants of anarchism.

Of course, assuming that you are using the narrow definition, yes, it isn't an equal society. There is still government, money and a "market" (though not a capitalist market, and not even a real market, as the state controls prices).

So yeah, it isn't what I am aiming for.

Dystisis

18th April 2008, 10:52

What are you talking about? Even in a socialist society artists must be compensated for their work. They can't sell concert tickets or records so the state must award stipends to the artists.

Obviously, the state cannot award stipends to every guy who paints or plays a guitar. The stipends will be of different size. Artists who produce art or music which is most popular or of highest quality are compensated best. The greatest star of the Bolshoi Theatre is better paid than some obscure folk artist.
Well, the idea is that demand for one particular genre of music doesn't mean that music is "better" than others.

Take a look at pop music these days, for example. This is shit music any teenager could make using 10 minutes in Garage Band and writing lyrics about "plastic love" or something equally ridiculous. Yet, it sells the most. Art needs to be, to the largest extent possible, free of economical barriers between the genres. That way art and culture can evolve in a positive way, unlike the way the it works today which is very much counter-productive when it comes to bringing up interesting issues of political, philosophical, or other type (and not to mention exploring beyond the barriers of graphical and musical organization).

Bud Struggle

18th April 2008, 17:08

So, I'd still be a millionare. I may be rich--But I'm DAMN SURE I'm not idle.

Cool. I'm for it! :)

RGacky3

18th April 2008, 18:01

RHIZOMES

18th April 2008, 23:41

the manager gets more than the workman

Read "Wage Labour and Capital" and get back to me.

Unicorn

19th April 2008, 00:01

Read "Wage Labour and Capital" and get back to me.
I have read it. Your point?

RHIZOMES

19th April 2008, 00:11

I have read it. Your point?

Let's say a worker is doing a job and gets... $100 or something like that. If the value of the product the worker is producing is $200, that means for half of labour the worker has done is made for the profit of the owner who didn't spend all that time devoting his labour to make the product.

Unicorn

19th April 2008, 00:25

Let's say a worker is doing a job and gets... $100 or something like that. If the value of the product the worker is producing is $200, that means for half of labour the worker has done is made for the profit of the owner who didn't spend all that time devoting his labour to make the product.
Managers are not owners and their labor is needed to produce goods industrially.

Robert

19th April 2008, 00:51

we should surely respect all art forms?

Have you ever seen the Lawrence Welk show? It's baaaad, by which I don't mean good. I concede that the musicians never, ever make a mistake.

jake williams

19th April 2008, 02:23

Socialism is an extremely broad term with no "correct" specifics. The particulars that you're expressing seem pretty fair and sensible, I've seen better and worse, but that doesn't mean that that's any exclusively "real" socialism.

In terms of what I think should happen, though, I have some disagreements. For one, I can say as a musician that most working musicians either do it part time and/or are really broke. There's a few that get lucky and do decent, and maybe a few hundred who get "rich", a teeny tiny proportion. It's not really a pretty picture. But I certainly don't think artists especially, but even writers and engineers and so on should get higher pay. In fact, these are particularly enjoyable, "easy" jobs for those with sufficient skills (they're not exclusive in this, of course). There are quite a few jobs in these fields that I would be ecstatic to do for not much above minimum wage, never mind whatever average pay. The idea of paying artists more than they really need to be comfortable is ridiculous. It's a completely amazing job, performance artists especially. You do it because you love it.

Further, who says that a person's output should be the sole decider of what money they get? To deal with that sort of question it has to be made clearer what services are made available to everyone. I think it's certainly plausible though that some individuals have specific, legitimate needs and these should be met for them, however many bushels.

Unicorn

19th April 2008, 02:35

Socialism is an extremely broad term with no "correct" specifics. The particulars that you're expressing seem pretty fair and sensible, I've seen better and worse, but that doesn't mean that that's any exclusively "real" socialism.

Further, who says that a person's output should be the sole decider of what money they get?
Karl Marx. I described what socialism means in the Marxian tradition.

See this Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_each_according_to_his_contribution

To deal with that sort of question it has to be made clearer what services are made available to everyone.

I think it's certainly plausible though that some individuals have specific, legitimate needs and these should be met for them, however many bushels.
Yes. The social security system should certainly exist.

RebelDog

19th April 2008, 03:43

I basically agree with Michael Albert on this. We should reward effort and sacrifice. The miner should work less hours than the office worker because he makes a bigger sacrifice and contributes more effort to society's pooled resources. We should not base distribution on ownership, power, hereditary right, chance of birth, race, sex etc. We should at first base it around need but also reward those who sacrifice the most by simply giving them the incentive of consuming more by less hours worked for greater risk/sacrifice/effort given. At the moment we distribute society's wealth through markets and this will always be a mechanism by which the powerful take the most and the weakest are punished. That is no moral basis for distribution in any human society. There are many here who would defend the right of those who have the power to simply be rewarded for that power, not for effort or sacrifice. A rational, civilised society would surely dispose of the institutions that make such a inequitable state of affairs possible.

Red Equation

19th April 2008, 03:55

If you think about it, getting paid in a socialist society is very complicated with the above facts said. Perhaps you are working your hardest, working 16 hours a day, but your production rate is poor, and you get paid less than someone who works maybe 8 hours but works over twice as fast as you. Or consider the fact between an office worker or a construction worker. You can't really decide who is actually making the bigger contribution, everyone plays their own roles in a society, if the sanitary technician never comes, we would never be able to dispose of our trash with assistance. If the office worker stops making long distance calls, you can no longer call the ones dearest to you. It is difficult to weigh the importance between things like these, as there are both things that you obviously need to live, and those that give you the incentive to live.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th April 2008, 21:44

Can the quantity ever be too much?
Yes. Suppose the socialist economy produces 100 widgets per cycle, but only 90 are sold. In that case, only 90 widgets will be produced in the next cycle, and the spare economic resources will be devoted elsewhere.

As for underproduction, I believe a form of advanced payment should be used to send the planners signals about products that are underproduced. If a person goes to a store with the intention to purchase something and that product is not available, that person should have the option to pay in advance and have the product delivered to them when it becomes available. The existence of such advanced payments should be considered a signal that the product in question is underproduced - and statistics about these payments should be made publicly available so that the people are informed if the planners are being incompetent.

What is quality?
Quality cannot be measured in the absolute; it can only be measured in relative terms. Product A has a higher quality than product B if, all other things being equal, the average consumer prefers A over B.

Unicorn

19th April 2008, 21:49

Yes. Suppose the socialist economy produces 100 widgets per cycle, but only 90 are sold. In that case, only 90 widgets will be produced in the next cycle, and the spare economic resources will be devoted elsewhere.

As for underproduction, I believe a form of advanced payment should be used to send the planners signals about products that are underproduced. If a person goes to a store with the intention to purchase something and that product is not available, that person should have the option to pay in advance and have the product delivered to them when it becomes available. The existence of such advanced payments should be considered a signal that the product in question is underproduced - and statistics about these payments should be made publicly available so that the people are informed if the planners are being incompetent.
The context was that a single workman is paid according to the quantity and quality of goods he produces. A worker can never be "too productive". Stakhanov is the ideal.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th April 2008, 21:59

The context was that a single workman is paid according to the quantity and quality of goods he produces. A worker can never be "too productive". Stakhanov is the ideal.
Oh, in that case, I agree with you. Though I object to the implications of Stakhanovism because it often meant punishing average workers for not meeting the standards of the most productive workers.

Kwisatz Haderach

19th April 2008, 22:12

This idea people have of trying to map out a Socialist society never works, because it presumese that one or a couple poeple would have the authority to map it out and impliment it, which goes against the core of Socialism.
I must disagree with that. The point is not that we must plan socialism in advance, the point is that we must give people some sort of example of what socialism could be like. Without any such example, how would we even know what we are fighting for? We can't just say "let's have a proletarian revolution and decide what to do afterwards," because it is very likely that in the immediate aftermath of the revolution we will be too busy fending off imperialist intervention to hold meetings about the shape of revolutionary society.

In my opinion, the Soviet Union's flaws came precisely from the fact that it was based on a system of government improvised in the heat of the civil war. We don't have to design socialism in advance, but we must have a basic plan - a plan which can of course by amended or even completely replaced after the revolution, if necessary.

Green Dragon

20th April 2008, 01:01

[quote=RebelDog;1127568]I basically agree with Michael Albert on this. We should reward effort and sacrifice. The miner should work less hours than the office worker because he makes a bigger sacrifice and contributes more effort to society's pooled resources.

Says who? Albert? Is the 80 hour a week officde worker sacrificing less than the 40 hour per week miner? Upon what basis are these types of things quantified?

We should not base distribution on ownership, power, hereditary right, chance of birth, race, sex etc. We should at first base it around need but also reward those who sacrifice the most by simply giving them the incentive of consuming more by less hours worked for greater risk/sacrifice/effort given.

In your judgement, being a miner (coal perhaps?) is more of a sacrifice than doing office work. Under your theory, the community will reward that miner more than the offcie worker. Fine.
But what if the community needs more office worker than miners? How does it go about obtaining the labor for easier jobs, if it creates a system which determines distribution based upon the work performed, as opposed to the demand of the work?

RGacky3

20th April 2008, 02:06

the point is that we must give people some sort of example of what socialism could be like. Without any such example, how would we even know what we are fighting for? We can't just say "let's have a proletarian revolution and decide what to do afterwards," because it is very likely that in the immediate aftermath of the revolution we will be too busy fending off imperialist intervention to hold meetings about the shape of revolutionary society.

We can map out principles and the such, but not specifics, because its not up to us to decide, its a workers governemnt, we could map out the type of society, i.e. a democratic worker run ecnomy, and a free and equal society with no heiarchy and the such, but saying "so and so will make so much and so and so will produce this and that will be done and so will that." Implies that there is someone with the Autority to make that deisicion, also it makes things more rigid.

the Soviet Union's flaws came precisely from the fact that it was based on a system of government improvised in the heat of the civil war.

I don't konw what flaws your refering too, if you refering to the tyranny, oppression and murder then it does'nt have to do with improvisation it has to do with too much power too centralized. Which was planned, and the centralized economic planning.

Kwisatz Haderach

20th April 2008, 02:38

Says who? Albert? Is the 80 hour a week officde worker sacrificing less than the 40 hour per week miner? Upon what basis are these types of things quantified?
Well, for example, you could measure the amount of calories burned by the human body on average for every hour of working at job X. I'm not saying this should be the only measure of effort, but it's a good start.

In your judgement, being a miner (coal perhaps?) is more of a sacrifice than doing office work. Under your theory, the community will reward that miner more than the offcie worker. Fine.
But what if the community needs more office worker than miners? How does it go about obtaining the labor for easier jobs, if it creates a system which determines distribution based upon the work performed, as opposed to the demand of the work?
Presumably, if the job is easier, people would prefer that job over a harder one, all other things being equal. If office workers and miners got the same pay, most people would prefer office work to mining. Giving a slightly higher compensation to miners is both just and a neat way of attracting more people to do this hard job.

Simply put, people don't need reasons to do easy jobs. They'd prefer those jobs anyway. People need reasons to do the hard jobs.

We can map out principles and the such, but not specifics, because its not up to us to decide, its a workers governemnt, we could map out the type of society, i.e. a democratic worker run ecnomy, and a free and equal society with no heiarchy and the such, but saying "so and so will make so much and so and so will produce this and that will be done and so will that." Implies that there is someone with the Autority to make that deisicion, also it makes things more rigid.
Of course it's up to the working class to decide, but it is the right of every worker - ourselves included - to make suggestions and proposals for how socialism should work.

After all, a workers' government would be our government too. You don't expect to have a revolution and then retire, I hope.

I don't konw what flaws your refering too, if you refering to the tyranny, oppression and murder then it does'nt have to do with improvisation it has to do with too much power too centralized. Which was planned, and the centralized economic planning.
No. It was not planned in advance. Lenin did not show up in April 1917 with a blueprint for how to organize a socialist society. The RSFSR, and later the Soviet Union, was mostly improvised during the civil war.

The fact that they started economic planning - some 10 years later, I might add - doesn't change the fact that the political structures of the USSR were improvised during the civil war.

And the reason why power was centralized was precisely because the USSR was built in wartime, and fighting wars effectively usually requires a centralization of power.

20th April 2008, 03:14

Having the same pay isn't part of Marxist scientific socialism, its utopian socialism, specifically of the True Levelers/diggers.

What distinguishes capitalism from socialism isn't pay inequality in the abstract but profit extraction for one class from another and private ownership of the means of production. Collectively managed means of production will still require different pay scales in order to provide incentives to work in less desirable but socially necessary capacities.

Die Neue Zeit

20th April 2008, 03:17

^^^ Unfortunately, too many people still associated socialism and communism with this fetishism of egalitarian values. :(

Even under communism proper, people's needs will differ.

jake williams

20th April 2008, 03:34

The idea of equality easily lends itself to two largely opposite interpretations - to simplify a bit, everyone getting the same versus everyone getting what they need. I do think the latter should both be called "equality" because everyone equally gets their needs met, and should be supported because it's fair and sensible, as opposed to the former, which is neither.

Die Neue Zeit

20th April 2008, 03:44

^^^ In my ethics class, five distinct types of "distributive justice" were covered: "libertarian" (based on negative rights), "egalitarian," "capitalist" (supposed to be derived from rule-utilitarianism), "socialist" (needs), and "liberal" (Rawls):

http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_velasquez_busethics_6/38/9873/2527675.cw/content/index.html

I disagree with you, primarily because people's real needs will differ from person to person.

Unicorn

20th April 2008, 03:47

I plan to get a 300 m^2 apartment, a dacha and a luxury car. ;)

Kwisatz Haderach

20th April 2008, 03:59

What distinguishes capitalism from socialism isn't pay inequality in the abstract but profit extraction for one class from another and private ownership of the means of production. Collectively managed means of production will still require different pay scales in order to provide incentives to work in less desirable but socially necessary capacities.
Right, but in the absence of exploitation, inequalities of wealth are likely to be several orders of magnitude smaller than they are under capitalism. This is because property over the means of production, not the need for incentives, is the primary source of inequality under capitalism.

If inequality was produced by incentives then the shittiest jobs would get the highest pay because otherwise no one would do them. That is not the case in capitalism.

RGacky3

21st April 2008, 00:40

If inequality was produced by incentives then the shittiest jobs would get the highest pay because otherwise no one would do them. That is not the case in capitalism.

Great point, and movie stars would get paid the least.

Green Dragon

21st April 2008, 20:50

[quote=Edric O;1128196]Yes. Suppose the socialist economy produces 100 widgets per cycle, but only 90 are sold. In that case, only 90 widgets will be produced in the next cycle, and the spare economic resources will be devoted elsewhere.

The 100 widgets produced for that cycle was a decision made the previous cycle, using sales information from cycle before that. In other words, your 100 widgets were produced using information two cycles old. Extrapaolate this throughout the entire economy, for all products, and one can easily see the problems the community will have providing for needed wants.

As for underproduction, I believe a form of advanced payment should be used to send the planners signals about products that are underproduced. If a person goes to a store with the intention to purchase something and that product is not available, that person should have the option to pay in advance and have the product delivered to them when it becomes available. The existence of such advanced payments should be considered a signal that the product in question is underproduced - and statistics about these payments should be made publicly available so that the people are informed if the planners are being incompetent.

Okay. I go to the store looking for widgets. There are none available.
The first question is: Why are there none available? It would seem because the widget planners were basing their production decisions upon widget sales a couple of cycles ago. The problem is not so much the incompetence of the widget planners as is the incompetence of the system they are working within.
But okay. I then plop down my money to pay for a widget in the future. That information is sent to the widgetworkers, who produce that widget.
The second question: Why make the solution complex? Why not simply let the widget workers produce what they want, for how how much me, as a widget consumer, wishes to pay?
A third question (somewhat unrelated): Why should my desire to purchase a widget be a public issue?

Green Dragon

21st April 2008, 20:56

[quote=Edric O;1128431]Well, for example, you could measure the amount of calories burned by the human body on average for every hour of working at job X. I'm not saying this should be the only measure of effort, but it's a good start.

But isn't the best start when the community determines the degree to which it needs the job performed, and the degree to which people are willing to do it? The community needs coal miners because it needs coal. If it didn't need coal, there would be little sense in compensating miners to do it, regardless of how difficult the job would still be.

Green Dragon

21st April 2008, 21:04

[quote=RGacky3;1128402]We can map out principles and the such, but not specifics, because its not up to us to decide, its a workers governemnt, we could map out the type of society, i.e. a democratic worker run ecnomy, and a free and equal society with no heiarchy and the such, but saying "so and so will make so much and so and so will produce this and that will be done and so will that." Implies that there is someone with the Autority to make that deisicion, also it makes things more rigid.

Yes. But then you have to examine how the "principle" might work in reality. Saying it will be something like a "democratic worker run economy" is meaningless without further explanation and analysis. North Korea says it is a "democratic worker run economy." Upon what basis can there be an objection? Its not up to you to decide.

Kwisatz Haderach

21st April 2008, 21:30

The 100 widgets produced for that cycle was a decision made the previous cycle, using sales information from cycle before that. In other words, your 100 widgets were produced using information two cycles old. Extrapaolate this throughout the entire economy, for all products, and one can easily see the problems the community will have providing for needed wants.
No, not really, because capitalist enterprises operate in the same fashion. They attempt to determine future demand based on past demand, and produce according to their predicted future demand. Unless you're going to argue that capitalism somehow provides you with information about the future, there is no escaping the fact that your decisions about future production must be based on past information - no matter who you are or what economic system you operate in.

But okay. I then plop down my money to pay for a widget in the future. That information is sent to the widgetworkers, who produce that widget.
The second question: Why make the solution complex? Why not simply let the widget workers produce what they want, for how how much me, as a widget consumer, wishes to pay?
Because that leads to exploitation, inequality, and a distorted production function. Since a market economy gives different people different amounts of money, it allows some people's wishes to count more than other people's wishes in the marketplace. This leads to distortions in production - for instance luxury items are produced for the rich while the poor starve, since the rich have more money and therefore their wishes outweigh the wishes of the poor.

And, of course, if the workers were to produce "what they want," where would they get their information about what to produce? The same place the planners do.

A third question (somewhat unrelated): Why should my desire to purchase a widget be a public issue?
Your personal desire for widgets should not be public. The aggregate desire for widgets of the entire population should be public, because it keeps people informed about the state of the economy.

But isn't the best start when the community determines the degree to which it needs the job performed, and the degree to which people are willing to do it?
First of all, markets do not achieve that. Second, the degree to which a certain job is needed should be used to determine how many jobs of that type are made available, and the degree to which people are willing to do a certain job should determine if the planning agency ought to invest money into research to replace human labour with machines in that job.

The primary goal of technological research under socialism should be to reduce the number of necessary unpleasant jobs.

Green Dragon

21st April 2008, 22:05

[
quote=Edric O;1130033]No, not really, because capitalist enterprises operate in the same fashion. They attempt to determine future demand based on past demand, and produce according to their predicted future demand. Unless you're going to argue that capitalism somehow provides you with information about the future, there is no escaping the fact that your decisions about future production must be based on past information - no matter who you are or what economic system you operate in.

But you do not have a capitalist economy. It is socialist.
And no, capitalism does not base its production upon past demand. It baises it upon what it believes will be future demand, using information which exissts in the capitalist community. Information which as your subsequent paragraph indicates, will not be available to the socialist.
And why are we basing ideas based upon shortages as a result of scialist production?

Because that leads to exploitation, inequality, and a distorted production function. Since a market economy gives different people different amounts of money, it allows some people's wishes to count more than other people's wishes in the marketplace. This leads to distortions in production - for instance luxury items are produced for the rich while the poor starve, since the rich have more money and therefore their wishes outweigh the wishes of the poor.

Why do socialists persist in thinking production is a zero sum game?

Your personal desire for widgets should not be public. The aggregate desire for widgets of the entire population should be public, because it keeps people informed about the state of the economy.

They generally are in a capitalist community. And nobody except the nerds and those in the business pay much attention to it. Why would it be any different in the socialist community?

Second, the degree to which a certain job is needed should be used to determine how many jobs of that type are made available,

In the capitalist community, if a job is needed it becomes available. Why does socialism choose to make it more complicated?

and the degree to which people are willing to do a certain job should determine if the planning agency ought to invest money into research to replace human labour with machines in that job.

So if fewer people are willing to a job, the community will spend money to research machines to the job. Meanwhile... the job goes unfilled, the work undone, the community unsatisfied.

Maybe the community should just take the money being used in robot research, and simply raise compensation rates for that work, thus attracting workers to it. Then, work is done, the community is satisfied, and wealth is generated, which perhaps could be invested in robot reasearch.

Schrödinger's Cat

21st April 2008, 22:16

Robert

21st April 2008, 22:37

deleted, duplicate

Robert

21st April 2008, 22:38

I'm personally looking forward to a nice, one story home (indoor game room and jacuzzi included) with a hot racer to compliment the garage. Good. Now, go long on chocolate, oranges, and Exxon. Short JC Penney. Sell your gold.

*Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Bud Struggle

21st April 2008, 22:43

I'm personally looking forward to a nice, one story home (indoor game room and jacuzzi included) with a hot racer to compliment the garage.

Oh wait - Leftists are supposedly helpless idealists who want to only provide for basic needs under the pretense of equality. I almost forgot what I was. :lol:

Gene,

Try on one of these Commie apartments and you'll forget all about your petite-bourgeoise house!

http://www.midwinter.com/~koreth/russia/peter/apartments.jpg

Schrödinger's Cat

21st April 2008, 22:46

Hey, it looks like Austin. :laugh:

Bud Struggle

21st April 2008, 22:52

Hey, it looks like Austin. :laugh:

Well, this is the Bronx:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/03/14/realestate/cov.184.1.650.jpg

Kwisatz Haderach

22nd April 2008, 00:08

And no, capitalism does not base its production upon past demand. It baises it upon what it believes will be future demand, using information which exissts in the capitalist community.
"Information which exists in the capitalist community?" And what is the content of that information? Why, it is information about past demand, of course.

Why do socialists persist in thinking production is a zero sum game?
Because everything has an opportunity cost.

They generally are in a capitalist community. And nobody except the nerds and those in the business pay much attention to it. Why would it be any different in the socialist community?
Well, first of all they would have to be presented in a format that makes sense to the general population - for example in terms of the number of people who desire a certain product and are willing to pay for it.

Secondly, it is supposed to help people make decisions about the competence of the planners. Presumably if they are satisfied with the state of the economy they won't pay attention to the statistics, but if they are not satisfied they will have a reason to look at the stats.

In the capitalist community, if a job is needed it becomes available. Why does socialism choose to make it more complicated?
It isn't more complicated at all.

So if fewer people are willing to a job, the community will spend money to research machines to the job. Meanwhile... the job goes unfilled, the work undone, the community unsatisfied.
No. It is the task of the planners to match the available workforce with the required jobs. Everyone will have a job, but not everyone will have the job they like best. Everyone will be expected to draw up a list of the jobs they would like to do, in order of preference. If the demand for labour in a certain industry is higher than the supply, it will be necessary to transfer workers from other industries. This will be done based on their productivity and their preferences. For example, if there is an excess of construction workers and a shortage of miners, some below-average construction workers who have listed mining as their second or third preferred job will be transferred to mining.

Jobs that continuously rank at the bottom of people's preferences will be targeted for research and automatization. If this process continues long enough, we will eventually get to the point where all unpleasant jobs have been eliminated. That is one pre-requisite for communism.

Robert

22nd April 2008, 03:50

Kwisatz Haderach

22nd April 2008, 09:55

Can I be a planner? You can be a worker. Okay? :lol:

Seriously, doesn't this guys give you the heebie jeevies?
The planners are elected democratically and are subject to recall at any time. Their performance is under continuous review by the workers, and they are paid as much as the average worker.

Bud Struggle

22nd April 2008, 21:17

The planners are elected democratically and are subject to recall at any time. Their performance is under continuous review by the workers, and they are paid as much as the average worker.

Then why bother?

Seriously, doesn't this guys give you the heebie jeevies?

I feel like taking a shower after just reading this thread.

Kwisatz Haderach

22nd April 2008, 23:46

Then why bother?
Why bother what? Running for a planning office? Because you like that sort of work. I for one would love to be a planner under the conditions I described; ensuring that everything runs smoothly and people are happy gives me job satisfaction.

Bud Struggle

23rd April 2008, 00:29

Why bother what? Running for a planning office? Because you like that sort of work. I for one would love to be a planner under the conditions I described; ensuring that everything runs smoothly and people are happy gives me job satisfaction.

Honestly, I'd rather have the cash and to hell with job satisfaction.

I guess that's why I'm a Capitalist. But it's guys like me that turn Communism into totalitarian states.

S.O.I

23rd April 2008, 02:30

"the manager gets more than the workman"

umm

wait a sec here... :huh:

Green Dragon

23rd April 2008, 14:59

[quote=Edric O;1130155]"Information which exists in the capitalist community?" And what is the content of that information? Why, it is information about past demand, of course.

The capitalist who makes his decisions based upon what consumers purchased in the PAST, will not be a capitalist for very long.

Well, first of all they would have to be presented in a format that makes sense to the general population - for example in terms of the number of people who desire a certain product and are willing to pay for it.

Capitalism has this as well. Its known as prices, which reflect the number of people who want a product and are willing to pay for it.

Green Dragon

23rd April 2008, 15:00

Why bother what? Running for a planning office? Because you like that sort of work. I for one would love to be a planner under the conditions I described; ensuring that everything runs smoothly and people are happy gives me job satisfaction.

I am not surprised you would like to be a "planner" under the circumstances you describe.

Green Dragon

23rd April 2008, 15:06

No. It is the task of the planners to match the available workforce with the required jobs. Everyone will have a job, but not everyone will have the job they like best. Everyone will be expected to draw up a list of the jobs they would like to do, in order of preference. If the demand for labour in a certain industry is higher than the supply, it will be necessary to transfer workers from other industries. This will be done based on their productivity and their preferences. For example, if there is an excess of construction workers and a shortage of miners, some below-average construction workers who have listed mining as their second or third preferred job will be transferred to mining.

But what if your below average construction worker does not wish to be a miner, or anything other than a below average construction worker.
And another thing: Do you think maybe different jobs require different skills and knowledge? Why would you assume that a below average construction worker would be anything other than a below average miner, and why do you want that? Heck, that below average construction worker could be below average because construction work is second on his list. Maybe his first choice was lion tamer.