Re: Equality of Wages etc.

[Chris Doss]

Actually the bus driver would be paid more than the doctor. Bus driving was a 
relatively prestigious profession. I know people who wanted to be bus drivers when 
they grew up b/c of the status involved.

I below repost a comment my friend Sasha (Moscow State University, class of 1981) made 
when I referred him to a discussion on LBO about living standards in the USSR:

You are right: Your opponents are again mistaken! Working class in the USSR
was
quite a privileged stratum of the population. The average wage of a factory
worker was about 230-250 rubles per month plus they received quarterly
bonuses,
the so-called progressivka (bonus for overfulfillment of the plan) and
vysluga let (regular extra pay for long service). All combined, a factory
worker with over 5 years of service made around 400 rubles per month.
Moreover,
workers enjoyed huge discounts and even free passes to health resorts, free
passes to vacation resorts for their children, etc. However, to be honest,
low
skilled labor was not paid that well. Cleaners, for example, made around 100
rubles per month, but these were utterly lazy people, mostly alcoholics. For
comparison, a university graduate was paid 115 rubles per month and his best
prospect was to rise to around 300 rubles per month toward pension. Of
course,
professors and members of the USSR Academy of Sciences were paid well, but
they
were few. Doctors and teachers were paid around 150 rubles per month.
Furthermore, being a factory worker was a privelege in itself. I'm a
worker
was always pronounced with pride, while intelligentsia was often called
spoilt brat.

Regards


-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:30:32 -0700
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Equality of Wages etc.


 With respect to the quality of wages in the Soviet Union, I would like to add points.
 First, to a certain extent nonwage benefits meant that the equality was slightly
 overstated.  Second, the equality of wages was one reason why many of the upper class
 long to see the end of socialism.  From what I understand, the wages of a bus driver
 and a doctor were not terribly different.


 --
 Michael Perelman
 Economics Department
 California State University
 Chico, CA 95929

 Tel. 530-898-5321
 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Re: Equality of Wages etc.

[Mike Ballard]

Even the equality of wages,which Proudhon demands,
would merely transform the relation of the present-day
worker to his work into the relation of all men to
work. Society would then be conceived as an abstract
capitalist.

Wages are an immediate consequence of estranged labor,
and estranged labor is the immediate cause of private
property. If the one falls, then the other must fall
too.

http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-EPM/1st.htm#s1

I guess observations like the above, have always made
me partial to notion of abolishing the wage system.

Regards,
Mike B)


=
Love and freedom are vital
to the creation and upbringing
of a child.

Sylvia Pankhurst

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Equality of Wages etc.

[Charles Brown]

From: Devine, James


thanks for this. It was illuminating. This material on alienation =

doesn't just show up in the GRUNDRISSE. It's also in CAPITAL, vol. I. =

Sometimes, it's almost word for word.


CB: It would seem that The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret thereof
 is in Chapter One of Vol. 1 because it is part of the fundamental concepts
of the book.

Re: Equality of Wages etc.

[k hanly]

As I recall the basis of distribution was supposed to be to each according
to their social contribution during the socialist phase. This would not
imply equality of wages. The slogan was: From each according to their
abilities and to each according to their social contribution, as I recall.
This contrasted with the communist stage where it was: From each according
to ability and to each according to need.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Equality of Wages etc.


MB wrote:
BTW, the equality of wages was something being planned
and implemented in the old USSR.  For example, wages
on collective farms were being raised by greater
percentages than wages in the more urbanized, more
intellectual sectors in the sixties and seventies.

I'm not an expert on the old USSR, but I understand that this was an effort
to stop rural/urban migration. Earlier, under Stalin, the wage structure was
made much more unequal.
Jim D.

Re: Equality of Wages etc.

[Devine, James]

I don't recall that the USSR actually followed either slogan, though the distribution 
of income was more equal than in (say) the US. Of course, the distribution of power  
influence may have been just as unequal in both places.
Jim D.

-Original Message- 
From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wed 4/14/2004 10:07 AM 
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Equality of Wages etc.



As I recall the basis of distribution was supposed to be to each according
to their social contribution during the socialist phase. This would not
imply equality of wages. The slogan was: From each according to their
abilities and to each according to their social contribution, as I recall.
This contrasted with the communist stage where it was: From each according
to ability and to each according to need.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Equality of Wages etc.


MB wrote:
BTW, the equality of wages was something being planned
and implemented in the old USSR.  For example, wages
on collective farms were being raised by greater
percentages than wages in the more urbanized, more
intellectual sectors in the sixties and seventies.

I'm not an expert on the old USSR, but I understand that this was an effort
to stop rural/urban migration. Earlier, under Stalin, the wage structure was
made much more unequal.
Jim D.

Re: Equality of Wages etc.

[Michael Perelman]

With respect to the quality of wages in the Soviet Union, I would like to add points.
First, to a certain extent nonwage benefits meant that the equality was slightly
overstated.  Second, the equality of wages was one reason why many of the upper class
long to see the end of socialism.  From what I understand, the wages of a bus driver
and a doctor were not terribly different.


--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu

Equality of Wages etc.

[k hanly]

Sorry if this is a duplication my mail server went down and I am not sure if
it went through. The passage I was thinking of talks of equality of wages
not of wealth.

Here are the relevant passages from the Manuscripts..

It, therefore, follows for us that wages and private property are identical:
for there the product,the object of labor, pays for the labor itself, wages
are only a necessary consequence of the estrangement of labor; similarly,
where wages are concerned, labor appears not as an end in itself but as the
servant of wages. We intend to deal with this point in more detail later on:
for the present we shall merely draw a few conclusions.

An enforced rise in wages (disregarding all other difficulties, including
the fact that such an anomalous situation could only be prolonged by force)
would therefore be nothing more than better pay for slaves and would not
mean an increase in human significance or dignity for either the worker or
the labor.

Even the equality of wages,which Proudhon demands, would merely transform
the relation of the present-day worker to his work into the relation of all
men to work. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist.

Wages are an immediate consequence of estranged labor, and estranged labor
is the immediate cause of private property. If the one falls, then the other
must fall too.

http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-EPM/1st.htm#s1

The passages are some of the conclusions of a section that deals with
Estranged Labor. It has nothing to do with commercialism but with the
relationship of labor to capitalist and the products of labor in the
capitalist mode of production.. Here are some relevant passages:

The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his
production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever cheaper
commodity the more commodities he produces. The devaluation of the human
world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of
things. Labor not only produces commodities; it also produces itself and the
workers as a commodity and it does so in the same proportion in which it
produces commodities in general.

This fact simply means that the object that labor produces, it product,
stands opposed to it as something alien, as a power independent of the
producer. The product of labor is labor embodied and made material in an
object, it is the objectification of labor. The realization of labor is its
objectification. In the sphere of political economy, this realization of
labor appears as a loss of reality for the worker, objectification as loss
of and bondage to the object, and appropriation as estrangement, as
alienation [Entausserung].

So much does the realization of labor appear as loss of reality that the
worker loses his reality to the point of dying of starvation. So much does
objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker is robbed of
the objects he needs most not only for life but also for work. Work itself
becomes an object which he can only obtain through an enormous effort and
with spasmodic interruptions. So much does the appropriation of the object
appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker produces the fewer
can he possess and the more he falls under the domination of his product, of
capital.

All these consequences are contained in this characteristic, that the
workers is related to the product of labor as to an alien object. For it is
clear that, according to this premise, the more the worker exerts himself in
his work, the more powerful the alien, objective world becomes which he
brings into being over against himself, the poorer he and his inner world
become, and the less they belong to him. It is the same in religion. The
more man puts into God, the less he retains within himself. The worker
places his life in the object; but now it no longer belongs to him, but to
the object. The greater his activity, therefore, the fewer objects the
worker possesses. What the product of his labor is, he is not. Therefore,
the greater this product, the less is he himself. The externalization
[Entausserung] of the worker in his product means not only that his labor
becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists outside him,
independently of him and alien to him, and beings to confront him as an
autonomous power; that the life which he has bestowed on the object
confronts him as hostile and alien

Comment:
So the critique is not of commercialism or of markets but of capitalist
relations of production. No form of capitalism even one with equality of
wages overcomes the basic forms of alienation of the system of wage slavery.
Some commentators think that Marx abandoned this concept of alienation in
later works because it is not particularly mentioned as such but this is not
true. Similar passages and concepts occur in the Grundrisse. The usual
criticisim of the Manuscripts is that it involves idealist concepts that he
later jettisoned in his 

Re: Equality of Wages etc.

[Devine, James]

thanks for this. It was illuminating. This material on alienation doesn't just show up 
in the GRUNDRISSE. It's also in CAPITAL, vol. I. Sometimes, it's almost word for word. 


Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine




 -Original Message-
 From: k hanly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 9:17 AM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: [PEN-L] Equality of Wages etc.
 
 
 Sorry if this is a duplication my mail server went down and I 
 am not sure if
 it went through. The passage I was thinking of talks of 
 equality of wages
 not of wealth.
 
 Here are the relevant passages from the Manuscripts..
 
 It, therefore, follows for us that wages and private property 
 are identical:
 for there the product,the object of labor, pays for the labor 
 itself, wages
 are only a necessary consequence of the estrangement of 
 labor; similarly,
 where wages are concerned, labor appears not as an end in 
 itself but as the
 servant of wages. We intend to deal with this point in more 
 detail later on:
 for the present we shall merely draw a few conclusions.
 
 An enforced rise in wages (disregarding all other 
 difficulties, including
 the fact that such an anomalous situation could only be 
 prolonged by force)
 would therefore be nothing more than better pay for slaves 
 and would not
 mean an increase in human significance or dignity for either 
 the worker or
 the labor.
 
 Even the equality of wages,which Proudhon demands, would 
 merely transform
 the relation of the present-day worker to his work into the 
 relation of all
 men to work. Society would then be conceived as an abstract 
 capitalist.
 
 Wages are an immediate consequence of estranged labor, and 
 estranged labor
 is the immediate cause of private property. If the one falls, 
 then the other
 must fall too.
 
 http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-EPM/1st.htm#s1
 
 The passages are some of the conclusions of a section that deals with
 Estranged Labor. It has nothing to do with commercialism but with the
 relationship of labor to capitalist and the products of labor in the
 capitalist mode of production.. Here are some relevant passages:
 
 The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his
 production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes 
 an ever cheaper
 commodity the more commodities he produces. The devaluation 
 of the human
 world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of 
 the world of
 things. Labor not only produces commodities; it also produces 
 itself and the
 workers as a commodity and it does so in the same proportion 
 in which it
 produces commodities in general.
 
 This fact simply means that the object that labor produces, 
 it product,
 stands opposed to it as something alien, as a power independent of the
 producer. The product of labor is labor embodied and made 
 material in an
 object, it is the objectification of labor. The realization 
 of labor is its
 objectification. In the sphere of political economy, this 
 realization of
 labor appears as a loss of reality for the worker, 
 objectification as loss
 of and bondage to the object, and appropriation as estrangement, as
 alienation [Entausserung].
 
 So much does the realization of labor appear as loss of 
 reality that the
 worker loses his reality to the point of dying of starvation. 
 So much does
 objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker 
 is robbed of
 the objects he needs most not only for life but also for 
 work. Work itself
 becomes an object which he can only obtain through an 
 enormous effort and
 with spasmodic interruptions. So much does the appropriation 
 of the object
 appear as estrangement that the more objects the worker 
 produces the fewer
 can he possess and the more he falls under the domination of 
 his product, of
 capital.
 
 All these consequences are contained in this characteristic, that the
 workers is related to the product of labor as to an alien 
 object. For it is
 clear that, according to this premise, the more the worker 
 exerts himself in
 his work, the more powerful the alien, objective world 
 becomes which he
 brings into being over against himself, the poorer he and his 
 inner world
 become, and the less they belong to him. It is the same in 
 religion. The
 more man puts into God, the less he retains within himself. The worker
 places his life in the object; but now it no longer belongs 
 to him, but to
 the object. The greater his activity, therefore, the fewer objects the
 worker possesses. What the product of his labor is, he is 
 not. Therefore,
 the greater this product, the less is he himself. The externalization
 [Entausserung] of the worker in his product means not only 
 that his labor
 becomes an object, an external existence, but that it exists 
 outside him,
 independently of him and alien to him, and beings to confront 
 him as an
 autonomous power; that the life which he has

Re: Equality of Wages etc.

[Mike Ballard]

An increase in wages arouses in the worker the same
desire to get rich as in the capitalist, but he can
only satisfy this desire by sacrificing his mind and
body. An increase in wages presupposes, and
brings about, the accumulation of capital, and thus
opposes the product of labor to the worker as
something increasingly alien* to him. Similarly, the
division of labor makes him more and more one-sided
and dependent, introducing competition from machines
as well
as from men. Since the worker has been reduced to a
machine, the machine can confront him as a competitor.
Finally, just as the accumulation of capital increases
the quantity of industry and, therefore, the number of
workers, so it enables the same quantity of industry
to produce a greater quantity of products. This leads
to
overproduction and ends up either by putting a large
number of workers out of work or by reducing their
wages to a pittance.

Marx in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of
1844.
http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-EPM/1st.htm#s1


* I think that the word alien can be confusing. What
Marx is getting at primarily is alienation in the
sense of the separation of ownership and control of
the social product of labour which the wage-slave
suffers. Wages CAN grow, but the product of labour,
which
is always greater, cannot be controlled nor owned by
the producer, the worker, except by using the money
gotten from her/his wages to buy a portion of it back
in the form of commodities. Thus, the social product
of labour in a wages system becomes an alien
political-economic power OVER him/her. In a word, it
becomes Capital.

BTW, the equality of wages was something being planned
and implemented in the old USSR.  For example, wages
on collective farms were being raised by greater
percentages than wages in the more urbanized, more
intellectual sectors in the sixties and seventies.

Regards,
Mike B)



=
Objectivity cannot be equated
with mental blankness; rather,
objectivity resides in recognizing
your preferences and then subjecting
them to especially harsh scrutiny —
and also in a willingness to revise
or abandon your theories when
 the tests fail (as they usually do).
— Stephen Jay Gould

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Re: Equality of Wages etc.

[Devine, James]

MB wrote:
BTW, the equality of wages was something being planned
and implemented in the old USSR.  For example, wages
on collective farms were being raised by greater
percentages than wages in the more urbanized, more
intellectual sectors in the sixties and seventies.

I'm not an expert on the old USSR, but I understand that this was an effort to stop 
rural/urban migration. Earlier, under Stalin, the wage structure was made much more 
unequal. 
Jim D. 

Re: Equality of Wages etc.

[Mike Ballard]

There was a long article on wage equalization in a
publication which was used by scholars in the West.  I
think it was called, Problems of Communism.  I think
the article came out in the seventies.  I read it
around 1981. If I find the reference, I'll pass it
along. Anyway, lots of talk on this subject can be
found by Googling around, including stuff embedded in
the one below.

Regards,
Mike B)

http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/29cAzad.html




--- Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 MB wrote:
 BTW, the equality of wages was something being
 planned
 and implemented in the old USSR.  For example, wages
 on collective farms were being raised by greater
 percentages than wages in the more urbanized, more
 intellectual sectors in the sixties and seventies.

 I'm not an expert on the old USSR, but I understand
 that this was an effort to stop rural/urban
 migration. Earlier, under Stalin, the wage structure
 was made much more unequal.
 Jim D.


=
Objectivity cannot be equated
with mental blankness; rather,
objectivity resides in recognizing
your preferences and then subjecting
them to especially harsh scrutiny —
and also in a willingness to revise
or abandon your theories when
 the tests fail (as they usually do).
— Stephen Jay Gould

http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html