Help me argue against the Capitalists

[RisingDawn]

Hello everyone! Im in a thread at the moment, in another forum, and the subject of Socialism and Communism has been brought up. Im currently facing a wave of attacks by the Capitalists and so far ive been able to counter most arguments.

However there is a a question has arisen that I am unable to answer. So once again I call upon the elders to help me with my question!

It comment was
"Because the moment we switch to communism - nobody will think 'Why would I study to be a doctor when I earn a similar wage as a garbage disposer.' That is indeed realistic."

[Wht.Rex]

"Because the moment we switch to communism - nobody will think 'Why would I study to be a doctor when I earn a similar wage as a garbage disposer.' That is indeed realistic."

It is not realistic. It just proves how those who protect capitalism, simply have no clue what is communism or socialism, if they use such argument.

It doesn't work that way, that both doctors and garbage men get paid same wage. It is all about means of productions, how you serve society. Doctor obviously serves much better to society than garbage man, he is also going to get paid much more. Classic Marxist quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If he produced much more, then gets more back from society.

[Tim Cornelis]

Ignore Wht.Rex completely. He simply has no clue what communism or socialism is, given the argument he uses. Doctors will not be "paid", let alone be "paid much more" because the service they provide serves society better than the garbage man. There is commodity production in socialism, and hence no universal equivalent (money) to mediate the exchange of commodities, and therefore no is paid anything. In the initially established, less advanced first phase of socialist society, the distribution of goods is regulated by rationing via points or credits. These are in principle distributed per work hour, although some minor alterations can be made. Minor, because it would be impossible to flesh out the precise value of the individual contribution of each worker or even each 'profession'. So a factor can be introduced when there's a shortage of people available for a certain work activity, then that work activity can get a little more points per hour to incentivise people to enter into that work activity. That Wht.Rex uses the 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' mantra to justify income inequality shows he has no clue. He concludes the exact opposite of what this mantra conveys: "If he produced much more, then gets more back from society." No, in a higher phase of communism, where more goods are freely available, the amount of work you give to society bears no relation to the amount of access to consumer goods you have. You produce according to what you deem to be your ability, and you take from the pool of goods whatever you deem to need/want. Wht.Rex identifies as 'Left Patriot'. I can only guess that this is a Tankie-politics political formation. Presumably his vision of socialism is one where the state directs all aspects of life according to a despotic plan; how much someone's ability is is determined by some state bureaucrat, and how much he needs is as well. Then monetary compensation for work is adjusted to the bureaucracy's will. A barracks communism.

From another thread on a similar topic:

We obviously don't consider Europe socialist. To us, the socialist mode of production is based on common ownership and associated labour. All socialist positions consider themselves to be "genuine". So saying "all genuine socialists agree" is self-referential and circular.
If we, as idealist socialists do, like workers' self-management, we can define socialism as synonymous with a system based on workers' self-management. If we like welfare states, we can define socialism as such. Anything can be embraced and denounced as socialism if there is some remote historical continuity between the classical socialism of the nineteenth century and some political movement today. Marxism takes a different approach determining what socialism is, not as abstract ideological concept, but as prospective future society. We begin with what socialism is, and not what we would want it to be like. Marxism begins by analysing the social development as it plays out through history, which is the result of the objective factor of the development of productive forces. We covered how capitalism came about, and revealed it was not by argument of great philosophers or thinkers like Adam Smith. Similarly, the basis for socialism is not arguments, philosophy, rationality, or persuasion but capitalism. This is summarised by Marx as: “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” (German Ideology by Karl Marx). We see the social development of the socialisation of the productive and labour process, the concentration of capital which furthers planning (though still constrained by the 'anarchy of the market'), and we observe class antagonisms giving rise to class struggle. Social ownership comes about through socialised production being confronted with class struggle, which, as consequence (once class struggle culminates in a social revolution) has the socialised production process slipped into the hands of public property. It is "slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible." Then, associations assume control of production, the logical consequence of workers overthrowing bourgeois class rule. They replace the bourgeois management. Associated labour replaces wage-labour not because we prefer it (although we do), but because of social progress. And commodity production is "entirely inconsistent with" associated labour.

In other words, we define socialism not by what we like (a subjective definition), but why what objective tendencies we can observe (a more objective definition), and put socialism and its realisation "in relationship to the real development of history" (Bordiga). Cuba is, by this Marxist definition of socialism, not socialist either. But it did have a far reaching egalitarian income distribution that can help us quell such arguments.

Cuba had the highest rate of doctors per 1000 residents between 2005 and 2010 (1), yet the wages of doctors are exceptionally low. In 2006 Cuban physicians went to Guatemala to aid the people there. Their monthly salary while in Guatemala was 400 US dollars a month while Guatemalan physicians make 800 US dollars a month. “Yet that $400 is also about 16 times the average salary of a doctor in Cuba.”(2) The average salary of a Cuban physician is roughly 25 dollars a month according to this and another source (WSJ).(3) Carmelo Mesa-Lago “estimated monthly incomes in several occupations in Cuba as follows: average wage earner, $6; teacher, $8 to $9; surgeon or university professor, $11 to $12; tourist taxi driver, $100 to $467; private farmer, $187 to $311; owner of small restaurant, $2,500 to $5,000.”(4) This is the situation as it developed form the 1990s onward in the face of continued liberalisation. And, “in 1989, the maximum wage differential was 4.5 to 1.”(5) For 2002, Mesa-Lago estimated that in the state sector the lowest salary and pension was $4; a teacher earned 8-15; a university professor $12-22; a garbage collector $12-19; and an engineer and physician $12-25.”(6)
Similarly, Belarusian doctors earn very little in comparison to doctors in surrounding countries. Physicians in Belarus earn a mere 330$ per month while the estimated 2011 nominal per capita income was $490, though some sources state $200. In 2011, the president of Belarus promised to raise the salary of doctors by 25%.(7) Despite this low doctor's income, Belarus has the fourth highest rate of doctors per 1000 residents.(8) Similarly, the average Swedish doctor (general practitioner) earns not even half of the income of an average US doctor. A Swedish general practitioner earned $66,000 per year, while a US general practitioner earned $161,000,(9) yet the US is ranked 53rd (24 per 10,000) highest in rate of doctors, and Sweden 38th (38 per 10,000).(10) In Cuba or Belarus, a doctor's income is average and is more telling than Sweden's and US' inter-country comparison.



Cuba, in the heyday of its egalitarian income distribution, had an excess of skilled and professional workers, and a shortage of manual workers. Skilled workers made only a little bit more money than non-skilled workers. In fact, this caused problems in Cuba.

"In a society where education was free, young people tried, quite correctly and
understandably, to attain the highest education possible, but someone still had to
take out the garbage, grow the crops, harvest the sugar cane and build houses and
roads. Some measures, like the use of secondary students' work-study program to
increase the citrus crop, showed impressive results. But the basic shortage of
manual labor remained a serious problem leading to an unbalanced division of labor
with shortages of (skilled and unskilled) construction workers and an
, over-abundance of trained professionals and technical workers, according to lecturers
at the University of Havana's Equipo de Investigaciones Sobre el Desarrollo
(Institute of Development Studies, 1990).
In spite of its avowed and demonstrated concern for human needs, the central
state was faced with a bureaucracy that clearly had not prioritized social needs and
with a planned economy with so few construction workers it could not address the
most elementary housing and other needs of the population. The construction labor
shortage was made worse by an attitude that manual labor or getting one's hands
dirty somehow was not as dignified or rewarding a way to spend one's lifetime as
working in an office; to some extent, pay scales reinforced this attitude (Brundenius,
1984). This prEtiudice against manual labor (and those who perform it) is a
theoretical, political and practical consideration that exacerbated problems in Cuba's
division of labor and in workplace practices (Smith & Padula, 1990; also see
Carchedi, 1991, for a theoretical discussion of mental and material labor)."

(COMBINING MORAL AND MATERIAL INCENTIVES IN CUBA, by Eloise Linger
New School for Social Research, Behavior and SociJJ/lssl=, Fall/Winter 1992, Vol. 2, Number 2)


Source: GROWING ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DISPARITIES IN CUBA: IMPACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE, By Carmelo Mesa-Lago, page 5)

1 = http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/dat...ap.aspx?ind=74
2 = The Miami Herald, Sunday, March 05, 2006
3 = January 15, 2011, New Prize in Cold War: Cuban Doctors, Wall Street Journal
4 = Growing Economic and Social Disparities in Cuba, p. 3
5 = Growing Economic and Social Disparities in Cuba, p. 3
6 = Growing Economic and Social Disparities in Cuba, p. 5
7 = http://telegraf.by/en/2011/09/lukash...rplati-vracham Lukashenko Promises to Raise Salaries to Doctors Fourfold, 30 September 2011
8 = http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/dat...ap.aspx?ind=74
9 = p. 23, CRS Report for Congress, U.S. Health Care Spending: Comparison with other OECD countries
10 = http://www.globalhealthfacts.org/dat...ap.aspx?ind=74

[Rurkel]

There is commodity production in socialism, and hence no universal equivalent (money) to mediate the exchange of commodities,

* no commodity production

[The Feral Underclass]

Hello everyone! Im in a thread at the moment, in another forum, and the subject of Socialism and Communism has been brought up. Im currently facing a wave of attacks by the Capitalists and so far ive been able to counter most arguments.

However there is a a question has arisen that I am unable to answer. So once again I call upon the elders to help me with my question!

It comment was
"Because the moment we switch to communism - nobody will think 'Why would I study to be a doctor when I earn a similar wage as a garbage disposer.' That is indeed realistic."

In a communist society people don't receive wages.

The fundamental premise of their argument is that people only work for monetary incentive and if you remove that incentive no one will do any work. It's one of those very annoying things where they assume a statement to be true and then put the burden of proof onto you.

In a communist society people will do work because it is socially necessary. People will become doctors because that is how they want to serve society. It's as simple as that.

[The Feral Underclass]

It is not realistic. It just proves how those who protect capitalism, simply have no clue what is communism or socialism, if they use such argument.

It doesn't work that way, that both doctors and garbage men get paid same wage. It is all about means of productions, how you serve society. Doctor obviously serves much better to society than garbage man, he is also going to get paid much more. Classic Marxist quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If he produced much more, then gets more back from society.

That's not what that quote means...

You give all that you can but take only what you need. And it isn't referring to money, it's referring to social resources.

[Red Star Rising]

I know plenty of Communist who want to be doctors and would have no problem living on a moderate wage.

Not that wages would be a thing in socialism - there'd be labour credits to distribute the things that can't be distributed freely to all (which is surprisingly little as far as basic needs go). You would not be able to invest the credits or use them to buy multiple houses or exchange them or attempt to make a profit. At the end of the day, if the doctor works harder at what they do than the binman they will get more, if they don't they won't, simple as.

[RisingDawn]

Ignore Wht.Rex completely. He simply has no clue what communism or socialism is, given the argument he uses. Doctors will not be "paid", let alone be "paid much more" because the service they provide serves society better than the garbage man. There is commodity production in socialism, and hence no universal equivalent (money) to mediate the exchange of commodities, and therefore no is paid anything. In the initially established, less advanced first phase of socialist society, the distribution of goods is regulated by rationing via points or credits. These are in principle distributed per work hour, although some minor alterations can be made. Minor, because it would be impossible to flesh out the precise value of the individual contribution of each worker or even each 'profession'. So a factor can be introduced when there's a shortage of people available for a certain work activity, then that work activity can get a little more points per hour to incentivise people to enter into that work activity. That Wht.Rex uses the 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need' mantra to justify income inequality shows he has no clue. He concludes the exact opposite of what this mantra conveys: "If he produced much more, then gets more back from society." No, in a higher phase of communism, where more goods are freely available, the amount of work you give to society bears no relation to the amount of access to consumer goods you have. You produce according to what you deem to be your ability, and you take from the pool of goods whatever you deem to need/want. Wht.Rex identifies as 'Left Patriot'. I can only guess that this is a Tankie-politics political formation. Presumably his vision of socialism is one where the state directs all aspects of life according to a despotic plan; how much someone's ability is is determined by some state bureaucrat, and how much he needs is as well. Then monetary compensation for work is adjusted to the bureaucracy's will. A barracks communism.

Thanks for that!

Would you mind pretending im a ignorant capitalist and explain how this "Higher Phase of Communism" would work exactly?

[Illegalitarian]

The argument assumes that people only go into this or that profession for the money. If that were the case, universities would be full of people going into nothing but medicine, engineering and business but alas, this is not the case.

We can look at the superwealthy, ironically enough, to see how this is simply not the case. By their own logic, shouldn't the world's most financially well-off be what is refereed to as 'idle wealthy'? Why do most of these people, then, go through the motions of having to run a business, impress shareholders, and everything else that goes along with being the head of a large corporation? Why not just kick back on a beach somewhere with their millions and relax for the rest of their lives?

Because the vast majority of us work not because we're money hungry, but because it's simply what we like to do.

[Illegalitarian]

The point Tim brought up about Cuba is the argument usually made by these people, that in such a society, with no financial barriers to entry or higher education, that everyone would pursue their utmost desires and thus no one would do manual labor.

Which ignores both the large number of people who enjoy manual labor as well as the necessity of manual labor that would make it a social responsibility, a task that would absolutely have to be done.

[Sewer Socialist]

Point out that there will be no such thing as a business degree; those people just might make themselves actually useful when that option disappears, possibly within the medical profession.

I think that people are likely viewing the education system as it exists today, where people must bury themselves financially to become a doctor, and only the high wages of the medical profession may bring them out of it. In a socialist system, education is respected work, not something people put themselves in debt for so that they may someday pay it off.

This argument also seems to possibly imply that manual laborers would be some kind of parasite leeching from the hard work of doctors, which is quite frankly absurd. Manual labor is hard work, and not everyone enjoys it. Plenty of people enjoy education and would enjoy helping people while working in a medical office. I think this attitude is a result of manual laborers being relatively lower-paid, and so people view them as being worth less.

[Red Star Rising]

Ask anyone, even a right winger, if they want to be a wall street investment banker. The majority will say "no" and give you a weird look. They just accidentally proved that money isn't the sole driving force for pursuing a career and things like respect from colleagues and society, working environment, life enrichment, following interests and a desire for further education also play a part and would not become irrelevant when capital is abolished. In fact, many people think that doctors don't get paid enough and yet it is still one of the most sought after professions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It comment was
"Because the moment we switch to communism - nobody will think 'Why would I study to be a doctor when I earn a similar wage as a garbage disposer.' That is indeed realistic."

My snarky answer to this stupid and stock question by pro-capitalists (the janitor vs. doctor thing is a meme developed on the right... You can google it... So much for the "individualism" of capitalist thought) is that you couldn't choose to be a janitor under communism because capitalism is the only system that thinks that spending 40-50 hours a week picking up people's cups and crap is an efficient use of someone's life.

As someone who has worked a lot of shit jobs, this question is offensive. First it assumes that these jobs are easy; low paid or unrespected jobs are much worse and often much harder in different ways. Skilled labor has a little bit of automatic negotiation power while unskilled labor is much more exploited and taken advantage of because people can be bullied or replaced. Second, everyone wants to feel "useful" and not like they are spending their lives in an empty or meaningless way. How callously elitist it is to think that janitors are janitors because they just want it easy... It's not true and it excuses the main fact of capitalism: the compulsion of millions and millions of people in to the workforce where they have to compete with eachother for the privilege of giving their productive hours away to enrich others and (hopefully) mearly sustain themselves or maybe a family.

Capitalism is not about merit, pay is not based on worth - it's about profits and controlling the workforce. Professionals like doctors or educators today get paid less and have to study and specialize more than a couple of generations back... This is not because they have less worth, it's because these tasks are being deskilled and there is more competition which means employers can demand more and pay less... There's a hungry intern or student waiting, if you don't accept their terms.


Communism is not about people being paid the same or told what to do, it's about people using our abilities and possibilities to free ourselves, to do away with shit work and to make our own fufilling meaning and to enjoy the short time we have in life. People will still get sick and there will still be a need to clean things, but waged-jobs are not the only and generally not the best (outside of profit-making) ways to accomplish these tasks.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Thanks for that!

Would you mind pretending im a ignorant capitalist and explain how this "Higher Phase of Communism" would work exactly?

I think he has done so already - you work for however long you want to work, doing whatever you please, and when you want some part of the social product, you take it. I imagine Tim and I would disagree about labour-credits and so on, but this is pretty much the definition of the higher phase of the communist society.

Also, you have to love arguments that boil down to "but unless we keep people enslaved they're going to make bad decisions". Yeah, I'm sure the endless stream of people who are pushed into a career they openly hate is the best thing since pre-sliced bread. What a horrible world it would be if people could choose to do a job they love.