Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Are wages equal for everyone under Communism?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 6
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Dec 2014, 04:06
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 05 Jan 2015, 05:27
I'm curious if they are because if so it would seem unfair in some cases as what if you have a hard worker who puts his all into his job and then you have someone who does the bare minimum but they are both paid equally rather than the good worker getting a raise and/or the bad worker getting fired.
Soviet cogitations: 108
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Feb 2014, 12:33
Pioneer
Post 05 Jan 2015, 23:35
Under communism there is no state, so I'm guessing no wages. Its effectively anarchism. In the stage between capitalism and communism, often called socialism wages are unequal (but not as unequal as the capitalist system since the majority, the proletariat, take power)
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5137
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Nov 2007, 06:31
Embalmed
Post 05 Jan 2015, 23:58
No.

From Critique of the Gotha Programme:

Quote:
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.


There are no wages in communism, but I suspect your question was a more general about everyone being paid the same.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 07 Jan 2015, 13:20
Usually Communists like to differentiate the first phase of communist society which they call "socialism" and the second phase of communist society, usually called "communism", more developed, in which wage-labor itself might be abolished. So comrade Conscript answered that there is no wages in a communist society. But your question was rather about a Soviet-style "socialist" society. Therefore the answer is no, wages are not equal for everyone under socialism because everyone don't do the same work.

Let's take an example: If you want to develop a part of your country which is a bit remote and cold, like Siberia, and where nobody wants to go, what will you do? You will probably offer higher wages, and that would be fair. However, a fair socialist society would not tolerate important differences. In a capitalist society, the higher wages can be 10 times higher than the lower wages. That's totally unfair, because no work is worth 10 times more than another.

In your own example the good worker would receive a reward of some kind, it could be money, or something symbolic, or a present, or a free day, anything is possible as long as its fair and not used against the other workers. Workers could even decide who amongst themselves is worthy of a reward.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 6
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Dec 2014, 04:06
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 08 Jan 2015, 05:39
OP-Bagration wrote:
Usually Communists like to differentiate the first phase of communist society which they call "socialism" and the second phase of communist society, usually called "communism", more developed, in which wage-labor itself might be abolished. So comrade Conscript answered that there is no wages in a communist society. But your question was rather about a Soviet-style "socialist" society. Therefore the answer is no, wages are not equal for everyone under socialism because everyone don't do the same work.

Let's take an example: If you want to develop a part of your country which is a bit remote and cold, like Siberia, and where nobody wants to go, what will you do? You will probably offer higher wages, and that would be fair. However, a fair socialist society would not tolerate important differences. In a capitalist society, the higher wages can be 10 times higher than the lower wages. That's totally unfair, because no work is worth 10 times more than another.

In your own example the good worker would receive a reward of some kind, it could be money, or something symbolic, or a present, or a free day, anything is possible as long as its fair and not used against the other workers. Workers could even decide who amongst themselves is worthy of a reward.


I should have worded the question better but thank you (and the others) for your responses. I do believe that some jobs do have much less worth in terms of work put in than others but those are positions that socialism would most likely eliminate (can trading stocks even be called a job
). Also what about the bad worker? If he works less hard than the average worker how do they punish him since you can't reward all the average workers?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 10 Jan 2015, 22:13
It would be immoral and economically inefficient to punish a worker because he wasn't as much efficient as another. If a worker commits a fault, he can be punished. If he refuses to accomplish the tasks, he can be punished. But if he screwed ten bolts instead of the average 12, you won't punish him. You might talk to him. His colleagues will talk to him. But anything more than that would be a mistake.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.