Socialism is bad because a janitor shouldn't be paid as much as a doctor!

Pick one

...

^
Report

yeah but I don't think most serious socialists give a shit. USSR had variance in wages, Rojava does, Cuba does, obviously Yugo did, and so on *sniff*

I did a while back, don't remember everything from it. From what i can remember he was moreso arguing for waged abolition rather than equality.

Not everyone has the IQ, temperament, steady hands, and compassion to be a doctor. Any fucking retard can mop a floor.

lel

Does this surprise you? The US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world. You know shit's bad when people are leaving your country to get healthcare anywhere else.

I am fully supportive of exact equal wages for every occupation under socialism. Communists shouldn't shirk from this, but be proud and open about it. Almost everyone will find the concept of equal wages appealing if you dispel the retarded propaganda against it.

Yeah and? What should someone get a higher wage for having more IQ and temperament? Financial motivation and financial reward need to be abolished under socialism.

Not sure, but it's not like there's even any good argument against that except jealousy and, wanting to feel special.

I imagine being a doctor diagnosing people all day and make sure they are safe and healthy is much more satisfying than being on your feet all day with a mop or on your knees cleaning toilets.

It comes from the white color idea that your class is defined by how much you make, and those who make more do so because they are inherently better.

It is also straight up ressentiment.
If you think about it egotistically, it doesn't matter what anyone else gets so long as I get what I want. The person making this argument, on the other hand, doesn't even know what they want, other than some false and passing image of status (and a status which is thoroughly humiliated, the argument presupposes always an employer who is of higher class and whom neither the doctor nor the janitor could ever hope to reach).

this is really bad shitposting I mean "Financial motivation and financial reward need to be abolished under socialism." cmon man

That should say "white collar," not "white color."
White collar idea (as in, a middle class, slightly higher paid salaryman who looks down on those a little lower paod than him).

There is no reason a janitor or coal miner shouldn't be paid as much as a doctor. Everybody gets equal share and you work for the commune or society. Anyone who says they deserve more than others is exactly why all leftist revolutions of the past have failed. It just opens up excuses for people who are chosen to be leaders or elders of the commune or society to hoard resources and then corruption once again.

>>>Holla Forums

Unlike communism, this has been tried before. Look at Native Tribes and their highly socialistic societies. Did their doctors get paid more than others? NO.

Same in so many others. Nearly all existence doctors have never been high paying jobs.

Everybody gets equal share, this shouldn't even be debatable. What the fuck is wrong with everyone recently?

We have to rid ourselves of this reactionary middle class ideology of white collar supremacy. Under socialism, white collar workers will be treated and looked at in the same way as blue collar ones. Any position other than total wage equality (or wage abolition) is reactionary.

They want to seem 'sane and presentable' by accepting one of the (dumbest) anti-socialist platitudes: "hurr a doctor is better than a gross lazy garbage man"

There is NO reason for you to get payed a cent more than anyone else. None. There is no reason to preserve wage inequality under socialism besides spook induced feelings of superiority.

sasuga Holla Forums

How is any of this shitposting? I have yet to see an argument from the left on why wage inequality is necessary.

...

Common sense

Good points. I do agree that what you have compared to someone else doesn't matter as long as you have what you want. But I also think that wage variance has practical utility in certain situations. I.e, people may not want to perform a more rigourous and complex profession unless they're compensated more than they would be otherwise. I also think this applies to disgusting, unpleasent jobs like cleaning toliets and taking care of old fucks. I think that a wage-less system, communism, would be the stage where all can have total equality, in the sense that everyone has free access to a surplus of goods. It just seems like the whole wage equality issue gets thrown around a lot as an argument against socialism when it doesn't seem integral to the idea.

After reading this thread I think I'll respond to this argument in one of ways:

1) wage variance isn't totally at odds with a socialist economy

2) we shouldn't be as concerned with what we make in relation to other people inasmuch as we're concerned with whether or not we can get what we want.

I guess I'm just skeptical that we can be in a situation where everyone can have free access to everything (pure communism) unless there's technological advancements leading to more automation and a massive surplus. Until then I think some variance in wages/vouchers are nessecary for purposes of practical utility and incentive.

Communism is about getting rid of wages.

Most of these stereotypes come from the mid-late 20th century, when it was not only acceptable, but politically correct, to make up anything even vaguely negative about socialism/communism/etc. And I mean anything.

My OP was about socialism. Socialism can have wages, given that the workers own the means of production. or vouchers might be a better idea for socialism but my post still applies i think

Socialism is a stage of communism, so it won't feature wages.

It will indeed feature labour vouchers, which won't be equal for everybody (that's the point of having labour vouchers).

Much of the argument that complex professions deserve more 'money' is due to the large amount of expensive training that must be paid for. Free (or in fact, reimbursed) education at all levels avoids this while also ensuring that as many people as possible who have the inclination and ability may be trained for any number of professions. The capitalist system actively dampens entrance through cost barriers, often exacerbated by professional groups acting to increase labour-market scarcity.

Social prestige is a factor that tends to conflated with maternal reimbursement. Ultimately, (as is born out in studies) the amount of money you have, after a certain amount (comparable to fulfilling needs and marginal recreation) tends not to actually increase one's happiness.

In cases where there is a long term shortage of people in a profession, it would be reasonable to use increased reimbursement as part of an inducement. However, increasing the perceived importance of a job would likely be as (if not more) effective.

The reality is that most people entering a profession are drawn through a combination of enjoyment of the nature of the work and subjective social reinforcement.

The idea is that everyone has access to as much as they want provided they engage in some basic (and hopefully decreasing) amount of socially necessary labour.

I disagree. The argument is typically that harder jobs deserve more money. For example: a beginning construction job requires no more training than starbucks but it will typically be maybe 60% higher because it's a difficult job. The price of the labour is above the value of the job to incentivize people to take it.

Sure

I have no problem with the use of increased reimbursement to combat an actual labour shortage.

No.

Every socialist state had a muh privileged "ruling class."

So the fact you went to school for a long time, spent years of your life learning an extremely difficult yet highly demanding skill, being taught by professionals, to only be paid the same as some dipshit mopping the floors, or sweeping the floors.
Why would I study or work harder when i'm paid the same as any idiot that has a manual labour job or some lowly janitor job?

Cuba, as even Zizek will tell you, is a shithole, despite all the edgy teenagers here having mental gymnastics thinking that living there is better than the west.

youtube.com/watch?v=v_S8XjpunnI

I'm convinced that Leftypol is mostly stupid teenagers that idealize failed leftist projects, bitch about the west, yet you can only live because of capitalism and the west.

So, you claim to be a socialist but aren't opposed to income inequality?

Not categorically.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA KILL YOURSELF AYNCRAP

end yourself cuck

Cuba has better healthcare than the USA. Look at lifespan. Doctors do not deserve more. The have a duty to society and shouldn't complain about wages and instead should feel good they are doing good things. The ultimate goal is the absolute equality of resource among all including wages and the means to make them. Kys

0/10

pig detected

A construction worker works hard too, to the bone. Doctors is just comfy entitled bourgeois and their stupid books. How can they compare to a true proletariat who slaves away in the most thankless and dangerous jobs? Even if they didn't, who on earth deserves more than the other? Income most be redistributed equally no matter what. If one is unequal it serves to divide society since certain others will figure out they can get more than others opening the box to the same pig society we get again. Remember writings of Marx? Nobody is to get a house bigger than the other. That is ideal.

are you finished?

next you will give us idiotic lectures about human nature right?

fucking kill yourself fascist