Well here is Part 3 in my FAQ series. Last time I explained the basics of value and accumulation. Today I will focus on wages.
How are workers paid under capitalism?
Under capitalism, workers, or rather the proletariat, do not have the means to produce items and then sell them and so they must sell the only resource they have available in abundance, their time and physical ability to work. They must sell this resource on an open market where employers bid with workers for a price to their labor. This can be any amount, although in many counties there is typically a minimum wage that employers are required to pay. Theoretically workers and employers are free to negotiate the pay rate.
Pay usually takes the form of any hourly wage or a salary that is the assumed value of the labor the worker provides. The rate of pay can be determined by a number of factors including: difficulty of work, skills necessary to complete tasks, availability of replacement workers, education required, etc.
Is the capitalist wage system fair?
If the capitalist wage system functioned as it was intended then it could be argued that the system is "fair" but what wages fails to grasp is that the richest in society do not have to work for wages and thus are exploiting workers in order to enrich themselves. On top of this is the problem that a worker who builds an entire car may not, because of the incentive to pay less for work than what it should actually be worth, be able to buy the car they just built.
Capitalism, and its wage system, is based upon exploitation of the worker. Under capitalism a worker may provide labor that provides $20 per hour in value, but because of the need to generate profits, employers may only pay the worker $10. This is an economic necessity under capitalism because corporations have a legal responsibility to generate profits for the owners of the corporation. Non-corporate entities have the same motivation because the owner(s) of the company naturally want to generate profits for their businesses as well.
Can capitalist wages ever be fair?
In a simple answer, no. Since the need to generate profits is inherent in capitalism there will always be a need to pay workers less then they should be earning. Capitalism would immediately fall apart if workers were paid a wage equal to the wealth they actually generate because this would leave nothing left for the capitalist.
What is the socialist alternative to the capitalist wage system?
There are many alternatives available but the most convincing, at least to me, is the use of labor credits. Using labor credits a worker would earn credits based on the amount of work done which would then be amplified by the difficulty, danger, or necessity of the work in question. For example say Jimmy was a coal miner and Tom was an accountant. Both of them worked an 8 hour day earning them both 8 labor credits. Jimmy's job is inherently very dangerous and so he would get a 2 credit bonus. Tom's job requires special training and so he got a 2 credit bonus. Because Jimmy's job is naturally undesirable an incentive of 1 bonus credit is added to his work. So under this system Jimmy would receive 11 credits to Tom's 10.
Some may criticize this because they would say that all the education and responsibility of an accountant should inherently allow them to make more, however if one were to look at the usefulness of each task, and the dangers involved (I would dare any accountant to try being a coal miner for a day and tell me that they deserve more pay then a coal miner) then it makes sense for coal miners to make slightly more.
This system also isn't rigid. Should there not be enough accountants then the State could introduce a bonus for accountants in order to incentivize people to be accountants. This would work for any job. Socially undesirable but necessary jobs would result in more pay in order to ensure that enough people would work in those necessary jobs.
How would one use their credits?
So as has been explained previously, under socialism every individual would receive everything necessary to survive by default (food, home, transport, healthcare, etc.) at no cost to themselves. However luxury items or things that go beyond basic necessities would be purchased with labor credits. Naturally prices would be dependent on the labor that went into making the item in question, thus removing profit, for example a car would cost more credits than a chair.
Because prices would be dependent on the labor that went into making the item then people would be incentivized to work (none of the drivel that conservatives promote when they say a socialist society would be a society of freeloaders). I don't know about you but the idea of getting just enough food to survive and then sitting around doing nothing is not my idea of a good time or a happy life. If you wanted the newest video game, you'd have to go work. Want that fancy new phone? Go work for it. The entire system is devised to incentivize work while ensuring the most fair distribution of wealth. While there are bound to be a few people who simply refuse to work they will also be the people who will sit in the most spartan apartments with no nice things to call their own.
What is to keep people from subsidizing the laziness of others?
Essentially nothing. However under the labor credits system that I promote the credits are assigned to individuals and only those individuals, or their spouses or dependents, can redeem their credits. So say that Jimmy works hard and earns 100 credits in a week. Jimmy's neighbor Tom sees Jimmy's success and thinks, "Hey, I'll just take some of his credits and use them, he won't even notice." Well since the credits are in Jimmy's name (most likely using something like a debit card) then Tom, who is not authorized to take from Jimmy's credit account, would not be able to simply take the credits. While there is nothing to prevent Jimmy from helping Tom, Jimmy would have to do so of his own accord. And since prices are dependent on the labor used to produce the item being sold Jimmy would not want to screw himself out of his hard earned credits to help lazy old Tom.
What would wages under communism look like?
Communism would have no wages. Basically we need to also view the labor credit system as a socialization system. It is designed to make people equate work with personal gain and laziness with boredom and spartanism. The goal is to eventually reach a point where all, or almost all, members of society work because they want to work and help their community. The byproduct of work would then be that they have the ability to gain items in accordance with the work they provide. Eventually this would morph and evolve society until everyone only bought the items they want or need rather than simply trying to empty the entire store because they can. Under communism there would be no prices and no credits because they would not be necessary. People would not need to have their consumption regulated by credits because they would have no desire to take more than they need or that they feel they desire. Keep in mind that such a society would not emerge in a year, a decade, or possibly even a century. The transition from socialism to communism is a long process because it would not only be an economic revolution, but a revolution challenging our entire understanding of what constitutes our society and our behavior in that society.
Doesn't this enable people to take at will without giving anything back?
Theoretically yes but communism would only be reach once society would have no desire to endlessly and pointlessly consume. If masses of people are simply taking everything from the stores and not working then it is not a truly communist society. As the mantra goes, in a communist society work is "from each according to their ability." and products are provided "to each according to their need." Each individual would determine their own ability and need but socialization and education would guide everyone to provide all they are capable of and take responsibly that which they need.
_________________________________
Well that is all for wages under capitalism, socialism, and communism. It is by no means complete and, especially in regard to socialism, reflects my views very heavily. Next time I will delve into the role of communist movements and the competing theories of socialist development with an emphasis on the Theory of Permanent Revolution as promoted by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as promoted by Joseph Stalin. These form the main basis upon which sectarianism has developed and split the revolutionary communist movement since the 1920s. While there are other theories and movements out there, Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism are the two largest and so I will go over the basics of their similarities and differences next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment