/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2415121
150% an issue for the next man and the material circumstance they find themselves in. Not worth spending even a passing thought on as it is basically unknowable.

>>2415161
It's one of the main things people bring up as an argument against socialism though, "oh so the doctor and janitor will get paid the same"?

>>2415121
Workers will be paid according to their work and their needs. As the economy becomes socialized and self-sufficient, with its own national technological production to meet workers' needs, and these workers are educated and disciplined to organize collectively with modern technology to work, social inequality will be reduced to the extreme.

Let's begin with a text by Marx on the socialist economy:

>Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

<From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

<These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

<There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

<Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

<Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion – namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

<The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

<Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

<Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

<What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

<Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

<Hence, equal right here is still in principle – bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

<In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

<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.

<But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

<In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

<Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875)

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

Now let's turn to a text by Lenin that has a false criticism of a liberal against communists to answer this question:

<The abolition of classes means placing all citizens on an equal footing with regard to the means of production belonging to society as a whole. It means giving all citizens equal opportunities of working on the publicly-owned means of production, on the publicly-owned land, at the publicly-owned factories, and so forth.

<This explanation of socialism has been necessary to enlighten our learned liberal professor, Mr. Tugan, who may, if he tries hard, now grasp the fact that it is absurd to expect equality of strength and abilities in socialist society.

<In brief, when socialists speak of equality they always mean social equality, equality of social status, and not by any means the physical and mental equality of individuals.

<V. I. Lenin, 1914, A Liberal Professor on Equality

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

>give me an exact number of the optimal difference
I have more important things to do than speculate these details. Same for you, comrade.

You know how in mathematical voting theory there are a ton of criteria and a lot of criteria combinations are literally impossible to fulfill? Example: Condorcet criterion and Participation criterion. I am virtually certain that we can find intuitive-sounding criteria for a voting algorithm for setting salary differentials and that then we will also find out limits on how big the range for minimum and maximum salary can be if you want to fulfill these criteria.

It's common to say efficient people should be rewarded. It's common sense to take demand into account when thinking of economic efficiency. But consider that different income distributions result in different demand patterns. If we change the income distribution, our efficiency measures will tell us different things. Let's not think about the influence here as a very short story with one-directional influence (first the given demand pattern, then the just rewards, and then the story ends).

I do believe it's actually possible to roughly model different income distributions that would all be meritocratic and then use some inequality metric to choose the most boring distribution, so to speak.

>>2415557
I read those extracts fully but didn't exactly understand them, is Marx saying that labour vouchers will be given out equally or not equally under lower stage communism?

And Lenin is saying people aren't equal but doesn't clearly state what he's advocating for, is he saying that the 'stronger' worker will naturally get more because they produce more?

>>2415641
Well I'm not expecting an exact figure just people's general opinion.

>>2416453
Assuming we model salaries democratically like that, isn't it possible the less well paid workers will just vote to not pay that much more to the most 'valuable' workers which might lead to the most 'valuable' work that is highly specialised not getting done?

>>2416508
in critique of the gotha program, marx says that the more productive will indeed get a greater share of the social product. he also generally explains wage disparities under capitalism as a difference between unskilled and skilled labour.

>>2415163
if shit goes down it will not go down that way, arguing against ignorants

>>2416508
>Assuming we model salaries democratically like that, isn't it possible the less well paid workers will just vote to not pay that much more to the most 'valuable' workers which might lead to the most 'valuable' work that is highly specialised not getting done?
Not for the idea in the last paragraph. The idea there is not that anybody votes on salary, rather people are asked what they would buy from their income at different levels or we try to infer that information indirectly by statistical methods. From that demand, we determine the demand-driven salaries, and given these salaries, we guess demand and so on. I suspect that starting such a simulation from different income distributions, we end with a smaller number of stable distributions, but more than just one, and then we can pick from these according to some egalitarian goal.

>>2415163
Yes, the doctor can't do shit without the janitor. Maybe years of studying should somehow get paid to equalize doctor with janitor.

>>2417661
the janitor is replaceable; the doctor isnt
>paid the same
you are not supposed to go into janitorial work as a life-long career choice. its for unskilled workers (i.e. people who are supposed to learn skills later in life).

>>2415121
I think 3-6x is usual and reasonable if you can also hit the 3-5x minimum range from experience tenure seniority alone etc you could look up countries for something like the highest paid worker not making more than whatever amount. if food housing and medical are guaranteed by the state no inheritance and you dont have billionaire leeches than having that kind of spread for luxuries or vacation sounds good to me. so you could have jannies and burger flippers start out at $10 an hour and doctors and engineers starting at $30 but senior burger coordinators could easily make $50