Alternatives to Wage Labor.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SouthrnSmoke, Oct 16, 2011.

  1. #1 SouthrnSmoke, Oct 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2011
    I've noticed Dubaba mentioning wage labor when defining capitalism lately, and it was something that piqued my interest some. Enough to look around a bit and read some definitions and ideas.

    I don't speak for anyone else, but it seems socialists, and some anarchists have a problem with wage labor, choosing to perceive it as "wage slavery."

    I have a lot to say about this, but there's one issue that comes first, and if any socialist or communist thinkers would like to explain, i would like to hear their answers here

    1. What does a man work for if not wages?


    2. Why does this provide more freedom than voluntary contract?
     
  2. I have read that the purest commie systems are ones that do not use money. If one works, he is paid by having everything that he/she could want in return for whatever labor performed. (alloted food and shelter and such? but who decides the quality and make of these things?)

    System's without money however can not last, simply because government bureaucrats are incapable of allocating resources like the price system can. The price system is probably one of the major differences between pure commie and capitalism. The more demand for something, the higher the price, the more resources the market's "invisible" hands will shuffle down that production possibility. This system is far greater than anything that a person behind a desk could do on his/her own.

    Also, there is some socialistic ideas about limiting the amount of money someone can accrue. Some socialites will declare that if everyone makes 100,000 bucks a year, and no one is allowed to make more, that will make the world a better more wealthy place. But this doesnt take into account the subjective value of something that everyone has.

    Money is only worth what it is because of scarcity,(unless its fiat, in which case its doomed to fail as well) if everyone had a bunch of money, no one would have a bunch of money.

    I know I didnt answer your questions, but then again, Im not a leftist.
     
  3. #3 SouthrnSmoke, Oct 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2011
    These are some of the same thoughts i'm having too.


    Hopefully by starting off with the simple questions first, i'll be able to work through this concept with the resident lefties/socialists around here. I feel like i see a lot more definitions and conceptualizing coming from the free market libertarians, and i think it partly has to do with the fact that the blades from the school of socialism are constantly having to start in the middle when its comes to giving explanations.
     
  4. In early soviet russia it was seen as immoral to recieve a wage, as the worker does not reap the full profits of what he creates. Instead of a wage, one could receive food, a home, education through university, heating or other things of that matter. Im pretty sure they would have to apply or trade for other things.

    I think some wages would be necessary in the beginning of a socialist revolution, but the things I mentioned above such as education, food, housing should be guaranteed.

    People impoverished in a capitalist system do not have much freedom, and how hard you work does not always reflect how much wealth you attain. On an economic level, not being tied down to bills, worrying about if your family will starve or if you will be evicted would certainly make some feel more free. One big disadvantage of early socialism is that it requires central planning which would mean that restriction of travel(if someone wants to live somewhere else) is necessary. On a social level, it really depends on if you have authoritarian socialism or democratic socialism or maybe even a mix of the two, but that is the same with capitalism.

    DISCLAIMER- When I say capitalism, I dont necessarily mean a free market if I am talking about a free market I will use those words specifically. I see any form of wage labor as capitalism, and i dont really feel like getting in any more arguments over definitions.
     
  5. Leftists like to measure the value of labor based on physical exertion. So the ditch digger and farmhand would be the best paid and the manager the least paid (in reasources). So yeah i don't know why they would even want an education system its seems meaningless because it just encourages people to focus on things besides doing manual labor.
     
  6. Physical exertion of both body and mind.
     
  7. That's not slavery of a different kind? You cant go anywhere? In prison, you don't have to worry about food or shelter either. :bongin:
     
  8. Depends on how big the country or system is really, but it would really screw up the planning if everyone was moving every which way. IDK maybe the answer to this has been solved already by socialists, I just havent heard of it yet. As I said this only should really happen in early socialism when the new economic system is being built.
     

  9. This.

    That's why planned economies are complete impossibilities. Sure you can get rid of money and plan an economy, but it will result in severe losses of standards of living, poverty, starvation, etc. There is no way around it.
     
  10. Then how do you explain venezuela?

    UN

    The free market did wonders for latin america.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/05/opinion/l-free-market-misery-for-latin-america-409693.html
     

  11. Venezuela? What about it? They still use money I think, and the economy is getting worse steadily.

    Also nothing credible comes from the New York Times.
     
  12. Its still socialist, everyones economy is getting worse so its not suprising if venezuela gets a little worse.
     

  13. Venezuela's economy won't get better ever, at least not until it becomes more capitalistic. Socialism can't work, period. It's horrible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. I support a resource based economy. The work that people should be doing is advancing knowledge and technology. Menial jobs could be eliminated and done by machines, so humans can spend their time learning and living life the way they find most fufilling.
     
  15. Too bad thet the venus project is nothing but a load of crap, and makes even less sence that Marxian economics.
     
  16. Yet venezuela and cuba are doing better than every other latin american country besides brazil which has socialist tendencies. You sir need to step into reality
     
  17. What doesn't make any sense? I don't consider everything Fresco says to be gospel, but I agree with him that we should move toward a non-monetary economy.
     

  18. Their production base is being eroded because of socialism. It takes a while for socialism to wipe out the wealth of a nation, especially when that nation is sitting on a lot of oil. It is happening though, and it will destroy that country in time.
     
  19. Working for wages is essentially no different than working for food, home, or education. If your work is credited towards the same things your money buys, then you are simply taking away the liquidity of money. Money was created as a tool to simplify trading of resources. By creating an artificial resource that is very commonly accepted, you don't have to search out someone who has want you want, and wants what you have.


    I feel like this is pretty much subjective, as someone who does very hard labor may still not produce something as valuable to society as someone who sits in a lab in the ac all day studying organisms and finding cures for disease.

    If your not measuring the worth of someones work via the market, then how do you measure it?

    I would indeed feel free if i did not have to worry about bills, food, or a home. Free enough to spend my time doing things i want, rather than working, and i imagine im not the only one.

    In an environment where needs, and some wants are guaranteed to everyone, how do you ensure enough real labor is provided to support the demand for suck goods/services, if not via coercion?

    Also

    I would love for there to be quality education available to all, housing provided for all, and food provided for all. But who determines what quality and quantity is necessary for each? Small scale democratic councils? This sounds a bit complicated, and that does not even take into account the resources they would have to source from outside their local environment.
     

Share This Page