Pay for different work

[module]

So, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need,
But to what degree is what people get back dependent on what they put in?
Many 'socialists' I have spoken to deny that people will be 'payed' equally for their work. Some of them have said it would be dependent on how much, for example, education is needed for a particular kind of work.
What do you think of this question?

[Fran B.]

Marx explains that question quite well in "Critique of the Gotha Programme", part I [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm]:

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 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!

During the time that "bourgeois right", "the exchange of equivalents", still apply, although not all in the same degree as now, in the transitional phase to communism, we can guess that skilled labour (that for which education is needed as you say) would be paid higher than non skilled labour since the value of the commodity skilled labour power would higher that the value of the commodity non skilled labour power.
 

[module]

So, how many hours of labour determines how much you get back? I know you said also that 'we could guess' skilled labour would be payed better, but ignoring that for a moment for the purpose of example,
A doctor performing a one hour surgery, and a janitor taking an hour to clean a building surely wouldn't deserve the same amount for their work.
To say that the two forms of labour are inherently worth different amount, however, also doesn't sound right. Janitors perform necessary work, without which we would get sick and die from all the rubbish and grime everywhere. There are always going to be some people who need to be janitors. If we have more than enough doctors, however, and not enough janitors, then the janitors have no choice, perhaps regardless of their ability, and their wants, but to be paid less for their labour?
As for, as Marx said, 'the right to inequality', so people who get a bad roll of the dice, genetically speaking, perhaps, and can't help but be minimally productive, just won't have such a good quality of life?
Isn't there only a quantitive difference between somebody who is disabled mentally and somebody who is just a bit stupid? They won't have an equal opportunity to earn equal money because they have unequal means.

[Fran B.]

So, how many hours of labour determines how much you get back? ...
A doctor performing a one hour surgery, and a janitor taking an hour to clean a building surely wouldn't deserve the same amount for their work.
To say that the two forms of labour are inherently worth different amount, however, also doesn't sound right. Janitors perform necessary work, without which we would get sick and die from all the rubbish and grime everywhere.

Interesting question, although the first one is rather "how the value of one hour of certain labour is determined". I think that you are talking about a socialist phase of development in which wage labour and wages have disappeared, and Marx Labour Theory of Value wouldn't apply any more, but it wouldn't yet be "communism". So, "wages" (what you get back) would not be determined by the cost of production and reproduction of labour power.

In that phase of transition, as Marx says, you might receive a fair share after deductions for your labour input according to your input, effort and contribution to society. That would represent a share in the total material wealth that has been created, but not one according to your needs. So, the bourgeois right of exchange of equivalents, as Marx says, still applies. We must remember that Marx made that comment in relation to the Lassallean concept of "a fair distribution of the proceeds of labour", which as Marx said would still be "unfair".

Your question is then how that "fair share" would be calculated at the certain stage of socialist development and whether some particular inputs of labour would be considered more valuable than others. This is hypothetical. To be honest, I can't see that far. But it would be probably socially determined according to a socially equalised standard and in relation to total production after general social needs have been met. And, maybe the division between Janitors and Doctors would represent just a division of tasks rather than a division between individuals: the same people would be alternatively doctors and janitors, particularly if you think that there would be that many doctors. In that case, maybe it wouldn't make that much sense to reward higher (a bit higher?) one hour of cleaning than one hour of operating.

[module]

Hi, Fran B.
Thanks for your response, but I was initially not entirely sure I understood it! So I re-read your quote from Marx and now I feel like I do understand it perfectly, so no more questions from me on this. Cheers. :)

[JJM 777]

Different salary for different work is a complex topic during the transition from Capitalism to Socialism, and the topic will never go completely away from the world, even under Socialism.

If I imagine winning the elections today in Capitalist country X, so I can start moving towards Socialism, I would abolish all cash money and move to cashless society, so that the government is the employer of everyone, and grey employment market is difficult in the absence of cash.

Then I would create a labour bourse, a system a bit similar to stock market, where the value of stock or other items floats according to their demand on the market. BUT instead of letting the salary of work float, I would fix the salary of all jobs on the same level, and let the working hours float according to public demand.

How this "labour bourse" would function:
If a person wants to get some easy and very interesting work, like working as reporter for a pop music magazine, travelling around the world to interview famous pop stars, the public demand for such very nice work would probably be above average, so the enthusiastic job-seekers would offer to do this work with longer working hours than the average 35 hours per week (or whatever would become the average working time). Somebody offers to do this work 36 hours per week for the average salary that everyone will get. Someone else raises the bid to 37 hours. Maybe the bidding ends at 40 hours (and anyway the system would have some reasonable maximum bid that is possible to make), so the "value" of this type of work in the labour bourse would be 40 hours per week. If you want to work shorter days, then choose some other work and bid a shorter working time. If the work is not very popular, or if only few people have the necessary skills or education to do the work, you might get the job with a relatively low bid like 25 hours per week.

During the transition phase from Capitalism to Socialism, many people with Capitalist ideology would wish to migrate from the country, unless they get an exemption to work full time with their customary high salary. These relatively rare cases (might be 10% or 20% of the work force, but anyway a minority, not majority). I would make exceptions with all experts such as medical doctors etc. to ensure that the population will continuously receive their necessary expert services. But I would not allow any such exceptions to citizens of the country, so getting a work contract with higher salary during the transition phase would be possible only by renouncing one's citizenship of the country.

As it would become clear, how many people with necessary expert skills want to continue earning a high salary based on Capitalist world order, I would start educating new persons to these professions. Within some 10 years, all expert workers with these special salary arrangements would lose their jobs in the country, and be forced to migrate abroad, as the new rising generation would learn to do their work within the Socialist economical system, without inequality in salary between different kinds of work. Students would receive full salary in Socialist system, so the CApitalist argument of "unpaid years invested in studies" would not be relevant any more.

[Christopher Hill]

So, how many hours of labour determines how much you get back? ...
A doctor performing a one hour surgery, and a janitor taking an hour to clean a building surely wouldn't deserve the same amount for their work.
To say that the two forms of labour are inherently worth different amount, however, also doesn't sound right. Janitors perform necessary work, without which we would get sick and die from all the rubbish and grime everywhere.

Interesting question, although the first one is rather "how the value of one hour of certain labour is determined". I think that you are talking about a socialist phase of development in which wage labour and wages have disappeared, and Marx Labour Theory of Value wouldn't apply any more, but it wouldn't yet be "communism". So, "wages" (what you get back) would not be determined by the cost of production and reproduction of labour power.

In that phase of transition, as Marx says, you might receive a fair share after deductions for your labour input according to your input, effort and contribution to society. That would represent a share in the total material wealth that has been created, but not one according to your needs. So, the bourgeois right of exchange of equivalents, as Marx says, still applies. We must remember that Marx made that comment in relation to the Lassallean concept of "a fair distribution of the proceeds of labour", which as Marx said would still be "unfair".

Your question is then how that "fair share" would be calculated at the certain stage of socialist development and whether some particular inputs of labour would be considered more valuable than others. This is hypothetical. To be honest, I can't see that far. But it would be probably socially determined according to a socially equalised standard and in relation to total production after general social needs have been met. And, maybe the division between Janitors and Doctors would represent just a division of tasks rather than a division between individuals: the same people would be alternatively doctors and janitors, particularly if you think that there would be that many doctors. In that case, maybe it wouldn't make that much sense to reward higher (a bit higher?) one hour of cleaning than one hour of operating.

Right, the rule applying to Socialism is  "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"

[JJM 777]

Right, the rule applying to Socialism is  "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"

Never heard that version before.

Sorry for the sick, injured, handicapped, elderly and children. Their contribution, if they can make any at all, will never be enough even for their food and medical expenses.

[Christopher Hill]

Socialism is imperfect, which is why it must proceed Communism, in order to work at all imperfections, this is not to say that those who cannot contribute will be left behind, but this is obviously a problematic issue until all class distinctions and capitalist consciousness falls.