differential wage payments in same jobs under socialism

moonjosh wrote:

Scandinavian countries has a minimum wage but the wage is decided by negotiations.
and they don't have limited differential wage payments at all
plus soviet union in the 30s had a unlimited wage payments
For a example Stakhanovists wage was about 14 times more than normal workers.

You said

Quote:

Social Democrat countries has Minimum Wage System like most of the capitalist countries

Scandinavia countries don't have the minimum wage system. There is no legal minimum wage required by legislation. Instead, minimum wage standards in different sectors are normally set by collective bargaining. Most of the capitalist countries have the minimum wage system which is set by legislation and is applicable to all the economic sectors. You are talking about two different things here.

It's worthless to be here and saying that yes they have limited differential wage payments and you saying no they haven't. So let see the numbers. Gini Coefficient:

Distribution of family income

Liberal reference:

USA- 45

Social-Democratic Countries:

Sweden- 23
Denmark- 24.8
Norway- 25

Source:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

Enlightened?

As far as the Soviet Union is concerned Stalin indeed reverted the wage leveling policy of the 20's as a temporary measure to stimulate productivity during the critical period of industrialization but after the war this policy was abandoned and the income inequality markedly decreased. Plus, i doubt that the difference between wages was so high as you mentioned but if you have any material that proves it show it.

JAM wrote:

Scandinavia countries don't have the minimum wage system. There is no legal minimum wage required by legislation. Instead, minimum wage standards in different sectors are normally set by collective bargaining. Most of the capitalist countries have the minimum wage system which is set by legislation and is applicable to all the economic sectors. You are talking about two different things here.

It's worthless to be here and saying that yes they have limited differential wage payments and you saying no they haven't. So let see the numbers. Gini Coefficient:

Distribution of family income

Liberal reference:

USA- 45

Social-Democratic Countries:

Sweden- 23
Denmark- 24.8
Norway- 25

The Scandinavian countries have a low Gini index but they don't have limited differential wage payments at all.
Sweden and Finland has a minimam wage but its only de facto
but in Norway they have a official minimum wage payments.
If the scandanavian states have a limited differential wage payments. Just tell me how much the range is

moonjosh wrote:

The Scandinavian countries have a low Gini index but they don't have limited differential wage payments at all.
Sweden and Finland has a minimam wage but its only de facto
but in Norway they have a official minimum wage payments.
If the scandanavian states have a limited differential wage payments. Just tell me how much the range is

The wage system is similar in Sweden, Finland and Norway. These three countries have not a legal minimum wage. Instead, minimum wage standards in different sectors are normally set by collective bargaining. Norway is no exception.

It is very easy to assess the limited differential wage payments in the Nordic countries. You just need to check the Gini Index of countries like Cuba and North Korea where the limited differential wage system is a reality and compare those with the figures of Nordic countries, so lets compare:

Sweden- 23
Denmark- 24.8
Norway- 25

Cuba- 30
North Korea- 31

As you can see the income distribution is more equal in the Nordic Countries than Cuba and North Korea.

JAM wrote:

The wage system is similar in Sweden, Finland and Norway. These three countries have not a legal minimum wage. Instead, minimum wage standards in different sectors are normally set by collective bargaining. Norway is no exception.

It is very easy to assess the limited differential wage payments in the Nordic countries. You just need to check the Gini Index of countries like Cuba and North Korea where the limited differential wage system is a reality and compare those with the figures of Nordic countries, so lets compare:

Sweden- 23
Denmark- 24.8
Norway- 25

Cuba- 30
North Korea- 31

As you can see the income distribution is more equal in the Nordic Countries than Cuba and North Korea.

Cuba abolished limited wage payment in april 2008
and North Korea abolished it in 2002
And even the countries gini index is low,you can not see that they have a
limited diffrent wage payments.
and markets ard very widely spreaded in dprk and cuba
especially in north korea the planned economy is almost paralysis
so most of the people depend on markets and the rich-poor gap is very high(it will be higher than 31)

moonjosh wrote:

Cuba abolished limited wage payment in april 2008
and North Korea abolished it in 2002
And even the countries gini index is low,you can not see that they have a
limited diffrent wage payments.
and markets ard very widely spreaded in dprk and cuba
especially in north korea the planned economy is almost paralysis
so most of the people depend on markets and the rich-poor gap is very high(it will be higher than 31)

The numbers that i gave to you were made based on 2007 so it's still valid to Cuba. As far as North Korea goes, the Gini Index was 31.6 in 1998. Plus, the Gini Index in Soviet Union was 31 in 1973.

The income distribution is the only way to see the differential wage payments, if you have another tell me.

Don't you forget that the Nordic Countries have a great social-democratic tradition and the Unions are very powerful there.

JAM wrote:

The numbers that i gave to you were made based on 2007 so it's still valid to Cuba. As far as North Korea goes, the Gini Index was 31.6 in 1998. Plus, the Gini Index in Soviet Union was 31 in 1973.

The income distribution is the only way to see the differential wage payments, if you have another tell me.

Don't you forget that the Nordic Countries have a great social-democratic tradition and the Unions are very powerful there.

Scandanavian countries have a low gini index because
they impose very much tax to the rich. not because of limited wage payment


and the gini index in the soviet union was 23.8 in 1988
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/russia/gini-index
since 1988 was the perestroika era. it must be lower in the 70s
and in north korea the rich-poor gap is extremly high since the mid 90s so the statistic is to hard to believe
and in cuba markets are wide spreaded so some people became rich through markets
in north korea this problem is even more severe.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/russia/gini-index

moonjosh wrote:

Scandanavian countries have a low gini index because
they impose very much tax to the rich. not because of limited wage payment

You are getting confuse here. The numbers that i gave to you concern the income distribution, not the wealth of the families. But even if you mean rich by high income earning it just doesn't invalidate my argumentation since what matters is the income after tax and not before.

moonjosh wrote:

and the gini index in the soviet union was 23.8 in 1988
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/russia/gini-index
since 1988 was the perestroika era. it must be lower in the 70s
and in north korea the rich-poor gap is extremly high since the mid 90s so the statistic is to hard to believe
and in cuba markets are wide spreaded so some people became rich through markets
in north korea this problem is even more severe.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/russia/gini-index

You know that USSR was more than the Russian Federation, don't you? And you must know that the wealth distribution in USSR was not the same in all regions and republics.

I pulled the Gini Index of entire Soviet Union from here: http://213.174.196.126/ead/pub/002/002_5.pdf.

JAM wrote:

You are getting confuse here. The numbers that i gave to you concern the income distribution, not the wealth of the families. But even if you mean rich by high income earning it just doesn't invalidate my argumentation since what matters is the income after tax and not before.
You know that USSR was more than the Russian Federation, don't you? And you must know that the wealth distribution in USSR was not the same in all regions and republicsI pulled the Gini Index of entire Soviet Union from here: http://213.174.196.126/ead/pub/002/002_5.pdf.[/

[quote]


Gini indexes are calculated by the income after paying tax.

And at all the Gini index of soviet union was hard to see that it was as high as 31

Dagoth was right on this one, see:

Quote:

Wrong. It's control of Productive Property. Divisions on wage are illusory like race or sex. Workers have much more in common with the high-payed lawyer than with the struggling bourgeoisie.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not continue to give the rewards from exploitation to the bourgeoisie for one. In socialism surplus value is still taken but reinvested in the People's State. Exploitation does not fall with our revolution but we set up its death and give our children the axe to finally severe its neck.

100% behind you on this, there is no need to be talking about a normative, theoretical society like communism proper - we're still products of this age and would accordingly, whether we like it or not, bring traits with us that are anathema to communism. Just look at why the hippie commune movement failed, their total democratic model simply ended up being personality politics and castigating those they didn't like. Learn to walk first.

There is nothing within a higher wage that is necessarily a bad thing. A higher wage would incentivise more skilled applicants to chase a job, it is a pricing mechanism, whichever way you look at it, and it actually reflects the need of a specific region or a certain company at the time the wage was offered.
Wages do and should operate much like how a pricing mechanism reflects actual scarcity and actual demand, of course there are grave problems right now in society, like management jobs that require no experience in a field and are barely challenging offering a wage 4 times that of somebody who does something, and grave problems in the past with political, not strictly speaking social, patronage of a given profession, like regional Soviet managers doing things like approving of investments they would never follow through, because they could stand to gain a kickback of sorts.
This shouldn't be surprising though, as wherever economic activity takes place is also a market.

Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:

Dagoth was right on this one, see:


100% behind you on this, there is no need to be talking about a normative, theoretical society like communism proper - we're still products of this age and would accordingly, whether we like it or not, bring traits with us that are anathema to communism. Just look at why the hippie commune movement failed, their total democratic model simply ended up being personality politics and castigating those they didn't like. Learn to walk first.

There is nothing within a higher wage that is necessarily a bad thing. A higher wage would incentivise more skilled applicants to chase a job, it is a pricing mechanism, whichever way you look at it, and it actually reflects the need of a specific region or a certain company at the time the wage was offered.
Wages do and should operate much like how a pricing mechanism reflects actual scarcity and actual demand, of course there are grave problems right now in society, like management jobs that require no experience in a field and are barely challenging offering a wage 4 times that of somebody who does something, and grave problems in the past with political, not strictly speaking social, patronage of a given profession, like regional Soviet managers doing things like approving of investments they would never follow through, because they could stand to gain a kickback of sorts.
This shouldn't be surprising though, as wherever economic activity takes place is also a market.

Erichs_Pastry_Chef,

I don't know what " Divisions on wage are illusory like race or sex. Workers have much more in common with the high-payed lawyer than with the struggling bourgeoisie" has to do with some workers deserving to be paid more than others. Besides, I've already told that workers with higher productivity deserve to be rewarded for that.

Higher productivity =/= higher quality.
Paying piece wage, which is essentially what this is, forces someone to rush through as many items as is possible as a kind of incentive, it's Taylorism, rationalised hell in a rationalised workplace.

Wages and incomes essentially have nothing to with whether or not somebody is "more bourgeois" than the next person, I don't know where you're getting this idea from. Look at my point about incentives and a workable pricing mechanism. If you were to allocate wages differently, other than as I suggested, then expect some really messed up results and consequences. I wouldn't like to live in your idea of Socialism.

Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:

Higher productivity =/= higher quality.
Paying piece wage, which is essentially what this is, forces someone to rush through as many items as is possible as a kind of incentive, it's Taylorism, rationalised hell in a rationalised workplace.

Wages and incomes essentially have nothing to with whether or not somebody is "more bourgeois" than the next person, I don't know where you're getting this idea from. Look at my point about incentives and a workable pricing mechanism. If you were to allocate wages differently, other than as I suggested, then expect some really messed up results and consequences. I wouldn't like to live in your idea of Socialism.

I'm writing in English or Chinese??? What I said about productivity?

Quote:

I've already told that workers with higher productivity deserve to be rewarded for that.

Maybe i am writing in another language but if i wasn't explicit this time tell me what I've got to do.

Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:

Wages and incomes essentially have nothing to with whether or not somebody is "more bourgeois" than the next person.

Do you know the meaning of class? Do you know that the society is divided by classes? How do you fit in those classes? Is if you´re a owner or a employer? So we must consider that a highly paid lawyer has more in common with the workers than a owner of a small company with 3 or 4 employees??? This sounds very absurd and you are completely perverting the social structure. Even Dagoth Ur must have realized how absurd this was. Wages and incomes essentially determine you're social class. I don't know how you can have any doubt about that.

You didn't engage with what I wrote about a de facto piece wage.

Quote:

Do you know the meaning of class?

Yes

Quote:

Wages and incomes essentially determine you're social class.

No they don't

Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:

You didn't engage with what I wrote about a de facto piece wage.

Didn't i say that the ones with higher productivity should be paid more than the ones with lower? Wasn't this that you were referring to?



No they don't

So tell me, do you think that a high skilled engineer who receives 50.000 dollars per month and a unskilled worker who receive less than five hundred dollars per month belong to the same social class? If wages and incomes don't essentially determine your social class tell me what does...

Power is class, income still has nothing to do with it. Of course there should be minimum wage legislation that enables those working to at least live a dignified life.
Aristocrats can own plenty of land and be impoverished, yet they may live on less than £30,000 a year - this does not qualify as an argument that he is somehow more "working class" than a miner who gets £31,000 a year. The owner of a small company could be worse off than a headteacher, yet neither belong to the same social class.
You're just making a false dichotomy here.
I am also interested to know if you belong to a Trotskyist party that claims to be a "workers' party," despite being full of political failures, who don't know arse from tit, and students. They often say something to the effect of what you're saying now and seem to think that skilled professionals have no place in their party, simply for not being "working class" enough - a skilled professional is somehow branded as a p-b menace, somebody to be avoided. So, I ask these parties a simple question: who would educate you, who would you see in a hospital when your arm is bleeding heavily, who would design buildings, who would translate books?

I will keep saying this on this site: Four Yorkshiremen.

Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:

Power is class, income still has nothing to do with it. Of course there should be minimum wage legislation that enables those working to at least live a dignified life.
Aristocrats can own plenty of land and be impoverished, yet they may live on less than £30,000 a year - this does not qualify as an argument that he is somehow more "working class" than a miner who gets £31,000 a year. The owner of a small company could be worse off than a headteacher, yet neither belong to the same social class.
You're just making a false dichotomy here.
I am also interested to know if you belong to a Trotskyist party that claims to be a "workers' party," despite being full of political failures, who don't know arse from tit, and students. They often say something to the effect of what you're saying now and seem to think that skilled professionals have no place in their party, simply for not being "working class" enough - a skilled professional is somehow branded as a p-b menace, somebody to be avoided. So, I ask these parties a simple question: who would educate you, who would you see in a hospital when your arm is bleeding heavily, who would design buildings, who would translate books?

I will keep saying this on this site: Four Yorkshiremen.

First of all, after all the things i said about Trotsky it's quite surprising that someone thinks that i belong to a trotsky party.

Secondly, there are skilled workers unemployed or receiving very low salaries around the world. Not all skilled workers are highly paid, on the contrary. I don't think that you can exclude all of them just because they are "skilled".

Thirdly, you did not answer me the question that i did to you.

Fourthly, concerning your example about the aristocrats is wrong and is not valid because they possess land and the miner don't. Possession is also a form of income. They pay tax for it don't they??? They can always make profit from their land and the miners don't. The value of the land is always there and is being valorized all the time. Once again i say wages and incomes essentially determine your social class.

Regarding the example of the owner of a small company and the headteacher, yes they both belong to the same class. I would like to know why you do not consider so. Just because one is a owner and the other is not? That is ingenious and ignoring social reality.

You said power is class, what is power but money?? Do you know who changed the democrately elected governments of Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain? The markets. Power is money and power is class just like you said.

JAM wrote:

A teacher who teaches ten students can be much more hard worker, efficiently and productive than the one who teaches 40. So, what should be the main differential in order to be fair? Productivity as i said previously

Which if you understood my analogy whatsoever you would have realized that's exactly what I was saying. You instead focused on the idea of a person teaching 10 people at once versus 40. My point is that the 10 and the 40 got the same level of education within the same timeframe. So clearly the teacher who effectively taught 40 is clearly the more efficient and productive worker.

JAM wrote:

So can you see Lenin was favorable to the wage-leveling system. I doubt that Lenin would contradict Marx on this one but if you have something to prove the contrary you can show to me.

A. Not everything the early USSR did was all Lenin's idea nor was it necessarily something he favored. B. If Marx was wrong Lenin would be the first to point it out. C. I can't find the work I'm thinking of but I distinctly remember reading Marx shit all over the ultra-idealist notion of wage-leveling.

JAM wrote:

I understood you perfectly. Why the teacher who taught 40 people should receive more than the teacher who taught 10?You are assuming that a teacher who taught 40 people has much more work than one who taught 10. Wrong. 10 people can give you much more work than 40 people. Indeed, my personal experience says that taught 40 people is much more easier than 10 people. If you ever went to university you should know what i am talking about. You can have a lazy teacher giving lessons to 40 people doing a terrible job and a hard work teacher teaching 10 people with much more effort and quality. The level of knowledge of these 10 people will be much higher than those 40 people. Quantity doesn't mean quality.

No you didn't at all. The level of education is the same the only difference is the number of students taught.

JAM wrote:

You call it illusory?

Yeah because it is.

JAM wrote:

That is pretty insensitive and has nothing to do with socialism.

Sensitivity has nothing to do with socialism.

JAM wrote:

Everybody knows that differential salary is one of the causes of social inequalities just like race and sex as you said.

Wrong it is not a cause it is a symptom of class controlled property. Cash-money is the weakest form of capital and carries the least amount of real power. Your high-payed athlete for example exploits no one to the same degree that small businesses exploit their workers despite having much more money.

JAM wrote:

Do you think the blacks are not discriminated? Women? Are you serious?

What?

JAM wrote:

Nevertheless you're example of the lawyer is absurd since i don't know how can a rich lawyer have more in common with workers than a owner of a small company with four employees.

Because that lawyer is an exploited worker like the four as oppossed to the oppressor class (ie the bosses). This is not to say than high-payed workers are on our side but they're part of our class. Our class sells labor, their class steals/buys it from us. The amount of money in your pocket has no effect on this relationship except in securing their loyalty.

JAM wrote:

You are completely adulterating the conception of class and that is certainly anti-marxism.

No you just don't understand the scientific view of class. You're the one proposing anti-communist ideas like poor bourgeoisie being more like us than well-off proletarians.

JAM wrote:

But how can you build socialism in a unequal society?

What else are you gonna do? Society is unequal that won't disappear overnight. For example socialism necessitates an empowered political "class" of revolutionaries to adequately defend the gains of the revolution. Without this clear example of oppression, justified as it is, early socialism is reduced to ultra-leftist nonsense.

JAM wrote:

What you're advocating is that we should continue to have different classes but now with the same name for all of them.

lol dude your ignorance of class is hilarious. What othe class have is supported creating?

JAM wrote:

When people look at socialism they want more social fairness, not the continuation of the social inequalities now under the banner of socialism. The People's State must guarantee that social fairness, not perpetuating the divergences.

Emotions do not substitute for an argument. Socialism isn't a rosy-colored peace it's the advancement of the Proletarian War Machine. Without these powerbases we end up defenseless. Also in what sense has anything I said work against social fairness? Fairness is for the workers and everyone else can go eat shit.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Which if you understood my analogy whatsoever you would have realized that's exactly what I was saying. You instead focused on the idea of a person teaching 10 people at once versus 40. My point is that the 10 and the 40 got the same level of education within the same timeframe. So clearly the teacher who effectively taught 40 is clearly the more efficient and productive worker.

I always said from the very beginning that the most productive workers should be rewarded for that. So if you wanna have that discussion go have it with someone who rejects it.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

A. Not everything the early USSR did was all Lenin's idea nor was it necessarily something he favored. B. If Marx was wrong Lenin would be the first to point it out. C. I can't find the work I'm thinking of but I distinctly remember reading Marx shit all over the ultra-idealist notion of wage-leveling.

A.I doubt that something would be approved in USSR if Lenin disapproved while he was alive and leading the country. B. Wage-levelling was implemented in USSR, wasn't it? C. No source, no argument. Sorry pal.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Yeah because it is.

Go tell that to the women and blacks discriminated all the time.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Sensitivity has nothing to do with socialism.

It, doesn't? So what is the "fight against the exploitation" but a sensitivity feeling towards the explored?

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Wrong it is not a cause it is a symptom of class controlled property. Cash-money is the weakest form of capital and carries the least amount of real power. Your high-payed athlete for example exploits no one to the same degree that small businesses exploit their workers despite having much more money.

A high-payed athlete exploits no one? Are you from this planet? High-payed athletes have huge teams working for them, much more than a small businesses man. Once again your argument is completely wrong.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

What?

I said that income was the main forms of inequality in society and you said that was illusory like gender and race. Are you gonna say what again?

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Because that lawyer is an exploited worker like the four as oppossed to the oppressor class (ie the bosses). This is not to say than high-payed workers are on our side but they're part of our class. Our class sells labor, their class steals/buys it from us. The amount of money in your pocket has no effect on this relationship except in securing their loyalty.

Man, you certainly don't understand the world in which you are living today. You just cannot ignore the reality like you're doing. Don't you know that are high-paid lawyers with an tremendous influence in the media and the government? That is real power. What is this power compared to a small business man? This is turning hilarious.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

No you just don't understand the scientific view of class. You're the one proposing anti-communist ideas like poor bourgeoisie being more like us than well-off proletarians.

A high-paid lawyer is a well-off proletarian? Once again hilarious.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

lol dude your ignorance of class is hilarious. What othe class have is supported creating?

My ignorance? Who is the one reducing the class structure to a Owner/employee issue. That is ignorance. The social structure is divided in 3 categories: the lower, the middle and the Upper. Among them you can sub-divide. Got it?

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Emotions do not substitute for an argument. Socialism isn't a rosy-colored peace it's the advancement of the Proletarian War Machine. Without these powerbases we end up defenseless. Also in what sense has anything I said work against social fairness? Fairness is for the workers and everyone else can go eat shit.

When you said that income, gender and race differences are illusory in today's society.

I never said that socialism is a rosy-colored peace but certainly a communist government must fight against the social inequalities. That should be one of the primary goals of every socialist society.

JAM wrote:

A.I doubt that something would be approved in USSR if Lenin disapproved while he was alive and leading the country..

Why? Was Lenin the Bolshevik Messiah who could say no wrong and issue no wrong decree? Lenin changed his tune more than once that's because he was a Marxist, not some fool parading around on principal.

JAM wrote:

B. Wage-levelling was implemented in USSR, wasn't it?.

Not as far as I can tell. Leadership got payed more, so did top scientists. And rightly so.

JAM wrote:

C. No source, no argument. Sorry pal. .

Don't be such a child. I'll find the work but you know Marx wrote a lot and it's a little hard to find a specific work if you can't remember the date or title. But I guess arguments only have meaning to you if Marx or Lenin is scrawled down at the end.

Don't worry though I'll find it soon enough, and I was kind of hoping someone who remembered it might help me out finding it.

JAM wrote:

Go tell that to the women and blacks discriminated all the time..

You don't understand English very well do you?

JAM wrote:

It, doesn't? So what is the "fight against the exploitation" but a sensitivity feeling towards the explored? .

It doesn't. Emotions are irrelevant to the case that proletarian socialism is a more advanced system and the best one for humanity. You don't need any sensitivity to arrive at this conclusion. So no I'm not gonna cry and moan over my feelings rather I'm interested in things that actually matter.

Don't get me wrong, I am suspect of communists who don't seem to like workers or really care about their cause. BUT they're still communists.

JAM wrote:

A high-payed athlete exploits no one? Are you from this planet? High-payed athletes have huge teams working for them, much more than a small businesses man. Once again your argument is completely wrong. .

In some cases perhaps but most professional athletes employ no one. Trainers and all the support staff that make up a sports team are not exploited by the atheletes but are exploited by the ones who also exploit the athletes (team owner, arena owner, commercial agents, etc). Athletes do not control the means of production, like the well-off lawyer, and as such are not bourgeoisie like the business man who hires them.

JAM wrote:

I said that income was the main forms of inequality in society and you said that was illusory like gender and race. Are you gonna say what again?.

Well aren't you full of piss and vinegar. Also your poor reading skills have come back to bite you again. I said wage was a FALSE DIVISION OF THE PROLETARIAT like race or gender not that wage differences, race, and gender do not exist. Before you go off all half-cocked maybe you should try to read what is being said.

JAM wrote:

Man, you certainly don't understand the world in which you are living today. You just cannot ignore the reality like you're doing. Don't you know that are high-paid lawyers with an tremendous influence in the media and the government? That is real power. What is this power compared to a small business man? This is turning hilarious. .

None of which changes the fact that a person who sells their labor is proletarian and someone who owns the MoP and lives off of it is bourgeoisie. It's this relationship, to the means of production, that solely determines class. This is like Marxism 101 bro. There are rich proletarians this is not a contradiction. Take for example MC Hammer, he became fabulously wealthy and bought a giant mansion. Did this make him bourgeoisie? In what way? He clearly only lost money with his mansion, and was even reduced back down to poverty after everyone got tired of his act. If he'd been bourgeoisie he wouldnt have needed people to keep buying his albums.

JAM wrote:

AA high-paid lawyer is a well-off proletarian? Once again hilarious. .

If he buys productive property and starts living off that instead of his skills as a lawyer then, and only then, will he become bourgeoisie.

JAM wrote:

My ignorance?

.

Yeah it's actually kind of shocking.

JAM wrote:

A Who is the one reducing the class structure to a Owner/employee issue. That is ignorance. The social structure is divided in 3 categories: the lower, the middle and the Upper. Among them you can sub-divide. Got it?.

There is no middle class. Their are only two classes: the proletariat (those who live off their own work) and the bourgeoisie (those who live off other's work). Among both camps their are traitors and the betrayed but that has nothing to do with the fact that there are only two classes and the supposed "middle class" is a made up term to make workers feel like they've moved up in the world when really their lot remains the same.

JAM wrote:

When you said that income, gender and race differences are illusory in today's society..

They were always illusory. It's not like they stopped being real.

JAM wrote:

I never said that socialism is a rosy-colored peace but certainly a communist government must fight against the social inequalities. That should be one of the primary goals of every socialist society.

Social inequalities flow from the bourgeoisie and their cultural dominance of society. Communists are not like liberals setting up reactionary "responses" to catastrophes like mass police racism, we destroy those that engendered that racism in the first place. Also you did paint socialism as a rosy-colored peace by asserting that exploitation would end with the fall of capitalism. It won't because the state won't fall either. They both still serve a role (exploitation because of the necessity to properly invest surplus labor value and the state to oppress anyone who would stand against the liberated workers).

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Why? Was Lenin the Bolshevik Messiah who could say no wrong and issue no wrong decree? Lenin changed his tune more than once that's because he was a Marxist, not some fool parading around on principal.

Lenin, in his Soviets at Work, an address he delivered in April, 1918, expressly endorsed the –

“principles of the Paris Commune and of any proletarian rule, which demand the reduction of salaries to the standard of remuneration of the average worker . . . .” (See edition published in 1919 by the Socialist Information and Research Bureau, Glasgow. Pages 17-19.)

Lenin had also referred to the matter in 1917 in The State and Revolution. Using the Post Office as an example, Lenin declared (pages 52 and 53) that, after overthrowing the capitalists, the task of the Communists would be to –

“Make practical use of the experience .... which the Commune has given us. To organise our whole material economy like the postal system, but in such a way that the technical experts, inspectors, clerks, and, indeed, all the persons employed, should receive no higher wage than the working man. ...”

Lenin, State and Revolution:

"All citizens become employees and workers of one national state "syndicate". All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay."

Can we get over this Lenin issue?

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Don't be such a child. I'll find the work but you know Marx wrote a lot and it's a little hard to find a specific work if you can't remember the date or title. But I guess arguments only have meaning to you if Marx or Lenin is scrawled down at the end.

You need to base your argumentation upon something, don't you? I don't see any childish here, rather maturity. Childish is to argument without basis.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Don't worry though I'll find it soon enough, and I was kind of hoping someone who remembered it might help me out finding it.

Don't worry, I'll give one for you: Writing on the Paris Communards of 1871, Marx, in his Civil War in France (Labour Publishing Co. edition, 1921), highly approved their rule that “from the members of the Commune downwards the public service had to be done at workmen’s wages”

Dagoth Ur wrote:

You don't understand English very well do you?

No, I guess your english i don't. Lets see what you just said: "They were always illusory. It's not like they stopped being real."

So, they are Illusory or real? Oh wait, illusory has the same meaning as real? That is why i don't understand your english. It's too much confusion.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

It doesn't. Emotions are irrelevant to the case that proletarian socialism is a more advanced system and the best one for humanity. You don't need any sensitivity to arrive at this conclusion. So no I'm not gonna cry and moan over my feelings rather I'm interested in things that actually matter.

So, what is the hate towards the bourgeois but an emotion? See, you're digging a hole for you here.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I am suspect of communists who don't seem to like workers or really care about their cause. BUT they're still communists.

Lol. I guy who don't care about the workers cause is communist? You tried to be ironic with yourself here?

Dagoth Ur wrote:

In some cases perhaps but most professional athletes employ no one. Trainers and all the support staff that make up a sports team are not exploited by the atheletes but are exploited by the ones who also exploit the athletes (team owner, arena owner, commercial agents, etc). Athletes do not control the means of production, like the well-off lawyer, and as such are not bourgeoisie like the business man who hires them.

High-paid athletes have always a personal staff working for them. Consultants, lawyers, agents,etc. They are paid by the athlete, not by some club or organization. And most of them are involved in medium and large business.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Well aren't you full of piss and vinegar. Also your poor reading skills have come back to bite you again. I said wage was a FALSE DIVISION OF THE PROLETARIAT like race or gender not that wage differences, race, and gender do not exist. Before you go off all half-cocked maybe you should try to read what is being said.

You are getting too emotional on this one and i understand why but try to relax. I also notice that when this kind of low argument is used: "poor reading skills" is because you know that you are losing this one. I said: "What is one of the main causes for social inequalities today? Salary." You responded to this: "Wrong. It's control of Productive Property. Divisions on wage are illusory like race or sex. Workers have much more in common with the high-payed lawyer than with the struggling bourgeoisie. "

So, who is misusing the english? Once again, relax pal.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Yeah it's actually kind of shocking.

What is kind of shocking is that my ignorance is beating you down all the way.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

There is no middle class. Their are only two classes: the proletariat (those who live off their own work) and the bourgeoisie (those who live off other's work). Among both camps their are traitors and the betrayed but that has nothing to do with the fact that there are only two classes and the supposed "middle class" is a made up term to make workers feel like they've moved up in the world when really their lot remains the same.

Traitors and the betrayed? Do you know how absurd this sounds? Even Marx recognized the middle class! I think you are getting too confused here. Stop ignoring the complexity of the social reality and its structure. It's too simplistic to reduce our social order to owners and employees.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Social inequalities flow from the bourgeoisie and their cultural dominance of society. Communists are not like liberals setting up reactionary "responses" to catastrophes like mass police racism, we destroy those that engendered that racism in the first place. Also you did paint socialism as a rosy-colored peace by asserting that exploitation would end with the fall of capitalism. It won't because the state won't fall either. They both still serve a role (exploitation because of the necessity to properly invest surplus labor value and the state to oppress anyone who would stand against the liberated workers).

You really got confused in this post. When i ever said that exploitation would end with the fall of capitalism? I said that exploitation would end in the latter stage of communism. You are now making up things and that is the lower you can get.