LWDT 8: Hitting the Marx

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Ignoring you read this and came to the conclusion “I havd to pay everyone equally...Oh, dear.

Claiming this is just voluntary is nothing but a dodge and you know it.

There's literally nothing stopping such a system from happening right now. It just doesn't happen because its a shit idea that might work in a few scenarios (they're all pals, they're all committed socialists or they're all cleaners/surveyors).

[Kowani]

Clearly it astounds you, because you don’t understand it.

Well, maybe you could try explaining it.

If the value of their work isn't the same, why should they get the same salary?

To be honest, he has a point. I mean, so does Torra, but still.

No, no he doesn’t. It is a voluntary undertaking- You know what? Let’s look at Torra’s post that started this.

Assuming the cleaner and the senior partner have come to an agreement that their labor is equally valuable to the law firm's success, the senior partner's because they handle court cases and the cleaner's because they ensure the office stays cleaned and organized so that the senior partner can maintain their focus entirely on their cases? Yes. Because that's how Socialism works. As I said, though, there's always the alternative under Socialism of simply contracting a cleaner every so often instead, or coming to an agreement with one working for this firm full-time to be paid less than the senior partner. The latter would be less likely than the other two, but still possible and, again, as long as it was a voluntarily-agreed-upon matter and the senior partner allowed for flexibility in payment in the event that the cleaner needed more or whatever, there'd likely be nothing wrong with such an arrangement.

Ignoring you read this and came to the conclusion “I havd to pay everyone equally...Oh, dear.

[Torrocca]

Ignoring you read this and came to the conclusion “I havd to pay everyone equally...Oh, dear.

Claiming this is just voluntary is nothing but a dodge and you know it.

There's literally nothing stopping such a system from happening right now. It just doesn't happen because its a shit idea that might work in a few scenarios (they're all pals, they're all committed socialists or they're all cleaners/surveyors).

I see that my earlier point about workplace equality not being a one-way street in Socialism went entirely ignored.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I see that my earlier point about workplace equality not being a one-way street in Socialism went entirely ignored.

Elaborate.

[Torrocca]

I see that my earlier point about workplace equality not being a one-way street in Socialism went entirely ignored.

Elaborate.

Lemme just requote it real quick, because it'll basically be the same explanation:

Ahh yes, if I employ a professional surveyor and a guy who staples paper together, I must pay them the same wage.

Your economic theory astounds.

If you've voluntarily entered into an agreement with both of these workers (as a worker yourself, because that's how things would be under Socialism), where you agree to have equal ownership over the means of production of your business and thus total ownership of the fruits of your collective labor, then yes, you three would earn the same from any profits that business makes. That's how Socialism works. And, hell, there's no reason to assume that the business's labor would be divided up so one person professionally surveys land and the other just staples papers together while you do... whatever role you're taking on in this model. Your paper stapler duder could easily take on multiple roles, and most likely would be, since regulating a single person to just the singular task of stapling papers together would be something pretty damn stupid that I'm sure even the paper stapler would agree with.

Workplace equality isn't going to be a one-way street under Socialism, and it shouldn't be seen as such.

[Kowani]

Ignoring you read this and came to the conclusion “I havd to pay everyone equally...Oh, dear.

Claiming this is just voluntary is nothing but a dodge and you know it.

There's literally nothing stopping such a system from happening right now. It just doesn't happen because its a shit idea that might work in a few scenarios (they're all pals, they're all committed socialists or they're all cleaners/surveyors).

Hey, my own theory of socialism is a bit different. It’s also very dependent on automation and AI.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Elaborate.

Lemme just requote it real quick, because it'll basically be the same explanation:

If you've voluntarily entered into an agreement with both of these workers (as a worker yourself, because that's how things would be under Socialism), where you agree to have equal ownership over the means of production of your business and thus total ownership of the fruits of your collective labor, then yes, you three would earn the same from any profits that business makes. That's how Socialism works. And, hell, there's no reason to assume that the business's labor would be divided up so one person professionally surveys land and the other just staples papers together while you do... whatever role you're taking on in this model. Your paper stapler duder could easily take on multiple roles, and most likely would be, since regulating a single person to just the singular task of stapling papers together would be something pretty damn stupid that I'm sure even the paper stapler would agree with.

Workplace equality isn't going to be a one-way street under Socialism, and it shouldn't be seen as such.

I don't know what you're trying to tell me. You're taking my paper-stapler guy example way too literally, but I don't think that's what you meant.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

If there's no money in Socialism, what of market Socialism, and how do you prevent money from arising naturally in a Socialist society?

Well, you prevent money from arising by virtue of not being necessary. Money is used to trade for goods and services indirectly, yeah? But if everyone puts goods and services into the pot, they can withdraw from that pot.

Trade will always be necessary, and money streamlines trade.

[Salus Maior]

Well, maybe you could try explaining it.

If the value of their work isn't the same, why should they get the same salary?

No, no he doesn’t. It is a voluntary undertaking- You know what? Let’s look at Torra’s post that started this.




Ignoring you read this and came to the conclusion “I havd to pay everyone equally...Oh, dear.

That makes sense.

[Kowani]

Well, you prevent money from arising by virtue of not being necessary. Money is used to trade for goods and services indirectly, yeah? But if everyone puts goods and services into the pot, they can withdraw from that pot.

Trade will always be necessary, and money streamlines trade.

It’s not not trade in the traditional sense. It’s not like “you make shirts and I give you apples.”

[Torrocca]

Lemme just requote it real quick, because it'll basically be the same explanation:

I don't know what you're trying to tell me. You're taking my paper-stapler guy example way too literally, but I don't think that's what you meant.

I'm telling you that if you think one laborer's work isn't worth as much as another, but you're already operating under a system of equality, then there's nothing wrong with getting that first laborer to balance out the scales by doing more stuff. That's the point I'm making by saying that workplace equality isn't a one-way street under Socialism.

[Kowani]

That makes sense.

I’m looking back at my post now and seeing all my typos...

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Trade will always be necessary, and money streamlines trade.

It’s not not trade in the traditional sense. It’s not like “you make shirts and I give you apples.”

It is trade though.

[Kowani]

It’s not not trade in the traditional sense. It’s not like “you make shirts and I give you apples.”

It is trade though.

At this point, it becomes impossible to talk about without specifying a form of socialism.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It is trade though.

At this point, it becomes impossible to talk about without specifying a form of socialism.

Well I imagine that any form of Socialism which doesn't explicitly ban trade will have money.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

I'm telling you that if you think one laborer's work isn't worth as much as another, but you're already operating under a system of equality, then there's nothing wrong with getting that first laborer to balance out the scales by doing more stuff. That's the point I'm making by saying that workplace equality isn't a one-way street under Socialism.

If you're paying a surveyor $90-180k, no amount of "doing more stuff" will make paying stapley the same amount remotely reasonable. Maybe if all the workers are manual laborers or highly-skilled professionals with multiple specialties... otherwise its nonsense.

[Torrocca]

I'm telling you that if you think one laborer's work isn't worth as much as another, but you're already operating under a system of equality, then there's nothing wrong with getting that first laborer to balance out the scales by doing more stuff. That's the point I'm making by saying that workplace equality isn't a one-way street under Socialism.

If you're paying a surveyor $90-180k, no amount of "doing more stuff" will make paying stapley the same amount remotely reasonable. Maybe if all the workers are manual laborers or highly-skilled professionals with multiple specialties... otherwise its nonsense.

But you wouldn't be paying anyone anything, because a Socialist business would be collectively owned by all the workers. The earnings made from the profits of the fruits of their collective labor would be distributed according to however they decided it should be distributed, which would most likely be as close to perfectly equitable as possible.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

But you wouldn't be paying anyone anything, because a Socialist business would be collectively owned by all the workers. The earnings made from the profits of the fruits of their collective labor would be distributed according to however they decided it should be distributed, which would most likely be as close to perfectly equitable as possible.

More pay, bigger shares. Nothing but semantics. You've accepted that "pay" depends on the value of the work, not just a flat rate for everyone. In that sense, your model now is no different to cooperatives, which I do support.

[Torrocca]

But you wouldn't be paying anyone anything, because a Socialist business would be collectively owned by all the workers. The earnings made from the profits of the fruits of their collective labor would be distributed according to however they decided it should be distributed, which would most likely be as close to perfectly equitable as possible.

More pay, bigger shares. Nothing but semantics. You've accepted that "pay" depends on the value of the work, not just a flat rate for everyone. In that sense, your model now is no different to cooperatives, which I do support.

Worker cooperatives are literally Socialism in action on a micro-scale, so yes.

[Kubra]

Well, you prevent money from arising by virtue of not being necessary. Money is used to trade for goods and services indirectly, yeah? But if everyone puts goods and services into the pot, they can withdraw from that pot.

Trade will always be necessary, and money streamlines trade.

The idea of getting rid of money is mostly about getting rid of the need of its mediation. Money is incredibly useful, insofar as it gives an ideal comparison of exchange values: if I'm in a dealership I don't know how many shoes one would need to get a car, well if the value is in an arbitrary marker of value, gold or notes, it's quite easy to size up any two commodities. Best of all, I don't have to lug 60 pairs of shoes in, a chunk of metal or a wad of cash is much lighter. However, socialism ain't really about this kind of exchange, insofar as it concerns itself with the allocation of goods before their it is their comparative values. Exchange, sure, but not market-exchange.
Let me be a little more succinct: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Trade will always be necessary, and money streamlines trade.

The idea of getting rid of money is mostly about getting rid of the need of its mediation. Money is incredibly useful, insofar as it gives an ideal comparison of exchange values: if I'm in a dealership I don't know how many shoes one would need to get a car, well if the value is in an arbitrary marker of value, gold or notes, it's quite easy to size up any two commodities. Best of all, I don't have to lug 60 pairs of shoes in, a chunk of metal or a wad of cash is much lighter. However, socialism ain't really about this kind of exchange, insofar as it concerns itself with the allocation of goods before their it is their comparative values. Exchange, sure, but not market-exchange.
Let me be a little more succinct: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

I don't understand to be honest.

[Kubra]

The idea of getting rid of money is mostly about getting rid of the need of its mediation. Money is incredibly useful, insofar as it gives an ideal comparison of exchange values: if I'm in a dealership I don't know how many shoes one would need to get a car, well if the value is in an arbitrary marker of value, gold or notes, it's quite easy to size up any two commodities. Best of all, I don't have to lug 60 pairs of shoes in, a chunk of metal or a wad of cash is much lighter. However, socialism ain't really about this kind of exchange, insofar as it concerns itself with the allocation of goods before their it is their comparative values. Exchange, sure, but not market-exchange.
Let me be a little more succinct: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

I don't understand to be honest.

Well, let me try to rephrase. If I could just go out and get shoes, I would not need to exchange money for it. Perhaps I need to work, sure, by some compulsion or other, but that work does not need to be predicated on the hope of payment: it can merely proceed irrespective of what I directly hope to get from it.
This is of course very general, but is nonetheless the overall concept. Work separates from needs, needs separate from work.

[Turbofolkia]

Ahh yes, if I employ a professional surveyor and a guy who staples paper together, I must pay them the same wage.

Your economic theory astounds.

If you've voluntarily entered into an agreement with both of these workers (as a worker yourself, because that's how things would be under Socialism), where you agree to have equal ownership over the means of production of your business and thus total ownership of the fruits of your collective labor, then yes, you three would earn the same from any profits that business makes. That's how Socialism works. And, hell, there's no reason to assume that the business's labor would be divided up so one person professionally surveys land and the other just staples papers together while you do... whatever role you're taking on in this model. Your paper stapler duder could easily take on multiple roles, and most likely would be, since regulating a single person to just the singular task of stapling papers together would be something pretty damn stupid that I'm sure even the paper stapler would agree with.

Workplace equality isn't going to be a one-way street under Socialism, and it shouldn't be seen as such.

Have you ever worked at a law firm or in any office setting? This will never happen for the simple reason that administrative assistants and the like do not make anywhere near as much money for a firm as solicitors do. Even if a lower-tier employee took on multiple roles they would never generate as much money from their labour as a solicitor would, let alone a barrister.

Naturally I think that administrative assistants are vital to a firm's success but no reasonable solicitor or barrister would ever enter into such an agreement.

[Kubra]

I'm telling you that if you think one laborer's work isn't worth as much as another, but you're already operating under a system of equality, then there's nothing wrong with getting that first laborer to balance out the scales by doing more stuff. That's the point I'm making by saying that workplace equality isn't a one-way street under Socialism.

If you're paying a surveyor $90-180k, no amount of "doing more stuff" will make paying stapley the same amount remotely reasonable. Maybe if all the workers are manual laborers or highly-skilled professionals with multiple specialties... otherwise its nonsense.

by that measure why pay a tithe an I right or am I right

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I don't understand to be honest.

Well, let me try to rephrase. If I could just go out and get shoes, I would not need to exchange money for it. Perhaps I need to work, sure, by some compulsion or other, but that work does not need to be predicated on the hope of payment: it can merely proceed irrespective of what I directly hope to get from it.
This is of course very general, but is nonetheless the overall concept. Work separates from needs, needs separate from work.

You can't "just go out and get" everything. There will always be rarities, collectors things, items of sentimental worth, etc, which cannot be accounted for by "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs." You need trade to account for those, and where there's trade, there will eventually arise currency.