Should people who work harder get more labor vouchers than people who don't?

Should everyone in one profession get paid the same amount of labor vouchers?

Other urls found in this thread:

Without higher pay for working hard there would be no motivation to work harder.


This isn't the 19th century, a labor-point system for tracking hours-worked might be useful but we don't really need actual physical notes anymore. If such a system is used, it is immensely important that it be radically egalitarian. By all means, give twice the reward to the person who worked twice the hours. But there is no rational reasoning behind giving doctors, engineers, or managers significantly higher access to goods.

We shouldn't be messing around with economic restrictions too much anyway though. I don't deny the possible need for a temporary stalling of free access, but today this period could be a very short one indeed. It's entirely safe and indeed quite important to advertise gift-economy as an essential feature of a Socialist society. So much already goes to waste in Capitalism. Assuming conditions aren't totally hellish, a complete gift-economy will be feasible within a matter of a few years after the setting up of proletarian political-power.

Let me reword your question for you user: Should everyone in the same profession get paid the same wage?

Well, Marx suggested labor vouchers and suggested one hour at ANY job was worth the same labor voucher.

But Marx was the equivalent of a doctor in the dark ages of medicine. During Marx's time, economics had just barely moved from a branch of philosophy into more of a scientific realm.

Just like the doctors during the dark ages of medicine, Marx was able to identify symptoms of disease and their possible causes, but this field was not yet advanced enough for the 'perfect cures' to have been thought of yet.

You shouldnt take his critiques of capitalism as the solution to capitalism, but you should take them as what they are; critiques.

The main question is: why would anyone work harder for the same labor voucher? Promotion maybe? this is possible. Maybe they love their job and enjoy the feeling of success. this is possible too.

I cant answer if everyone ought or ought not to be paid the same compensation for the same supposed labor, but I can say that some people work for more than just the upfront compensation

why would anyone work at all

Why tf should people work """harder""" who cares

Who even issues and controls vouchers? How do they differ from mutual credit?

Sauce of this?

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Not that fucking hard comrade

One good reason is that the fields don't harvest themselves and someone's gotta do it if anyone wants to eat.
Why work if there's nothing that really, truly, must be done?

fuck off state capitalist.

nah dawg

Yes, the idea is to let people work for satisfaction, status among your peers, promotions and perks associated with your job in general.

This is not to defend vouchers, which are just money anyway. Once we have money, we may just as well let people have fun getting more than others. Same goes for any personal property - the line should be drawn at appropriating means of production, of course.

So no then.

"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 (emphasis mine), 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…"
-Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program.

Same labour vouchers per hour, yes.

Marx said this was not completely fair, but that it was a necessity for the lower phase of communism.

Marx says exactly the opposite of what you claim. The quote is right above your post. The distribution principle "recognizes unequal individual endowment".

He says that it must be measured by either duration or intensity, not both.

All is for all

He says OR, he doesn't say it is EITHER OR. It doesn't make sense to assume it's meant as either or. I invite everybody to read it for yourself:

It's a bit more complicated than that.

What I don't get about the position to pay people the same based on time worked without paying higher for higher intensity (again, not the actual position of Marx), is how they come to make that distinction. That is, if you consider it unfair to pay someone more because of some strange genetic quirk that makes them super-productive, why don't you consider it unfair to pay someone more because of some strange genetic quirk that prevents somebody from getting bored out of their mind working longer?

"I'm so sorry for working so few hours comrades, but it's not my fault, it's my genes! Now give me the same amount of stuff for my work please. Hmm, no wait, you must give me more. I don't get as happy as you just getting the same stuff, I need to get more to reach the same happiness level. Again, it's not my fault, but the one of my saddy sad genes. Please no bully. The last person who bullied me was Tom from accounting and he isn't here today because I just killed him. But I'm innocent, it's my genes that made me do it."