Why cannot

[Pogue]

We have a society where no individual holds excessive power or wealth, but we still pay more to offer incentives for progression and people still have their own money which they earn and know the value of? We'd still outlaw employing people and owning means of production to yourself, but some people'd be paid more than others (more experienced/skilled workers), with neccesary caps and limits?

Do we say we'd abolish money and create wage equality to prevent capitalism from coming back or just because under communism no one would need to have more money?

[BobKKKindle$]

So, you're saying that people should be given a larger share of output if they do more work, or if the work they do is seen as more difficult than other forms of labour - this is an unfair system of distribution, because we are all born with different capacities for mental as well as physical labour, and so just because someone produces more of a given product within a set of period of time it does not mean they have actually put more effort into the work they do, as they may just be innately capable of working harder. The only acceptable system of distribution for a communist society is a system based on need, whereby people do as much work as they are able to, and take only as much as they need.

[Forward Union]

If we have currency, then each coin is a unit of power. The more money you have, the more stuff yu can buy presumably. So if we have a system where some individuals can stockpile wealth, they can essentially create a monopoly of power.

Currency would be morribund.

[Pogue]

OK thought so. So say we had a revolution because everyone sort of got pissed off, and it resulted in us banning capitalism in the sense of a few people holding power and control and hoarding excessive wealth by controlling the means of production etc, and resulted in factory occupations and mroe democratic control but the new people on the job, say apprentices and trainees (like trainee nurses) were paid less because they were still learning, whereas more trained up senior nurses were paid more, this wouldn't be communism?

[revolution inaction]

OK thought so. So say we had a revolution because everyone sort of got pissed off, and it resulted in us banning capitalism in the sense of a few people holding power and control and hoarding excessive wealth by controlling the means of production etc, and resulted in factory occupations and mroe democratic control but the new people on the job, say apprentices and trainees (like trainee nurses) were paid less because they were still learning, whereas more trained up senior nurses were paid more, this wouldn't be communism?

If there is money or wages it is not communism

[GPDP]

So, you're saying that people should be given a larger share of output if they do more work, or if the work they do is seen as more difficult than other forms of labour - this is an unfair system of distribution, because we are all born with different capacities for mental as well as physical labour, and so just because someone produces more of a given product within a set of period of time it does not mean they have actually put more effort into the work they do, as they may just be innately capable of working harder. The only acceptable system of distribution for a communist society is a system based on need, whereby people do as much work as they are able to, and take only as much as they need.

While I agree with the notion that ultimately, the maxim of distribution in a communist society should be based on need, I want to discuss further what you just said about all of us being born with different physical and mental talents and capacities, and how when one takes that into account, a system of distribution based on how much one works, produces, or contributes is unfair.

Tell me, what is your thought on the pareconist concept of distribution according to sacrifice and onerousness of labor? While I would say this maxim would probably be unnecessary in communism, would you say it has a place in a transitional period? Let us ignore the potential pitfalls between anarchists and Marxists on the issue of transition for the moment, and say that both an anarchist transitional period and the Marxist "socialist" period could potentially incorporate this maxim.

I ask you this because from what I understand about the Marxist concept of the "socialist" stage, what I have encountered is that workers would be remunerated according to how much they work or contribute, which you just said would be unfair due to differences in every human being.

[Drace]

So, you're saying that people should be given a larger share of output if they do more work, or if the work they do is seen as more difficult than other forms of labour - this is an unfair system of distribution, because we are all born with different capacities for mental as well as physical labour, and so just because someone produces more of a given product within a set of period of time it does not mean they have actually put more effort into the work they do, as they may just be innately capable of working harder. The only acceptable system of distribution for a communist society is a system based on need, whereby people do as much work as they are able to, and take only as much as they need.

The distribution being based on need is the fairest, but people do not recognize this.
One would not see it as a fair system when they are working as doctors and getting the same benefits as someone lower.

[ZeroNowhere]

Labour credits are compatible with communism.

[benhur]

Whether it's the transitional stage or communism, I strongly feel that some kind of incentive is necessary. And since money isn't the right one due to disparity it creates, we'll have to settle for labor credit system. There seems to be no other way, everything else sounds too idealistic and impracticable.