Best form of government?

[OldTrees]

Well, if we reward according to work, the doing the bare minimum will profit you the bare minimum. If that supports you...cool. If not, then it's up to you to decide if you want to live in worse poverty or not. How would that work?

We have now moved from the "to each according to their needs" to "to each according to the value of their service". Aka the capitalist wage system.

[northcity4]

Correct trees. Capitalism without the capitalists.

The theory continues (found my old notes so this is straight from the theory) that there are no private owners (like rockefellers) owning the huge businesses. Let's go back to my logging example.

Before the revolution from capitalism to soviet socialism: you worked for a wage. Whether you worked the least or the most, you get paid according to wage...BUT

before, let's say a company made 100,000 dollars. Rockefeller would get a cut (something like a 3rd lets say) and then the rest goes to the company. Because of this, the managers and owners below Rocky will want to pay their workers as low as possible so the amount they receive is as high as possible (instead of the 'pot' being 100,000, after rocky's share, the pot goes to 66666 dollars).

Now everyone get's their fair share. Let's say you are working for a company that cuts trees and after the day, the company cut 100 trees and you personally cut 10. You are no longer paid on wages (incentive to work lazy) but rather paid according to work. So, since you cut 10 trees down, you receive 10% of the money made. Since big private owner ship is abolished, your share of 10% really is 10% of the total which means even more money. This right here is incentive to work your best because how hard you work is how much you get paid.

But, this does not work which is why we need to reward according to need

According to work is not fair. Let's say I am a weak guy in this logging company and everyone else is strong. The strong guys will probably cut so many trees that my share at the end of the day is super small. I may cut 10 trees, but lets say 1000 is cut during that day...I only get a measily 1%.

To fix this: give according to need and to give according to each persons ability. So, lets say one strong guy cut 200 trees and I cut down 10. Now, he cut more down, but it's not the # we look at, it is the ratio of a our abilities. If I worked as hard as I possibly could, that is what matters (like the bible story where the poor women gave 2 coins: it's not the amount, it's the fact she gave all she had).

Rewarding according to need and ability, which trotskey calls 'true communism' or 'communism that works' factors the luck out of life. When luck is gone, we are left with fairness. It was luck I was born weak and you were born strong to cut trees, but as long as both of us do our best, that is what matters: did I give my all. And as long as someone is making sure you give your all, we can have a fair society.

[OldTrees]

To fix this: give according to need and to give according to each persons ability. So, lets say one strong guy cut 200 trees and I cut down 10. Now, he cut more down, but it's not the # we look at, it is the ratio of a our abilities. If I worked as hard as I possibly could, that is what matters (like the bible story where the poor women gave 2 coins: it's not the amount, it's the fact she gave all she had).

Assumptions:
The wages take into account that the strong guy burns more calories per day and thus needs more food.
The wages of two people doing similar effort would be a ratio of their needs.

This solution punishes investment in human capital (aka training/education). It takes effort for the strong guy to work out to become strong. It takes time and energy to educate oneself. However this solution responds to this investment by setting higher expectations for the same standard of living as before. So it still takes the same amount of effort to sustain your standard of living but you ended up wasting time and energy trying to become more productive. I do not think I need to highlight the consequences of punishing improving productivity.

I consider the consequences of punishing self-improvement (elimination of all developed talents) to be much worse than the consequences of allowing people to benefit from their natural talents.

[northcity4]

I think you took the example a little too far out of context.

You are saying we are punishing the guy who took time to grow strong and educate himself while the other side argues he had the opportunity to do so. We must be fair to everyone
The other problem I see in your post is I consider the consequences of punishing self-improvement (elimination of all developed talents) to be much worse than the consequences of allowing people to benefit from their natural talents.

Answer: we are talking about an average of fairness.
It's like those graphs with a ton of dots and the person asks you to make a line that is the average of all the dots...or like finding the length of a curved line.

--->Some people will be born in situations where they can develop their talents and some will not. Some will have the option to move to places where they can and some will not. Some will mistakenly leave the area of their talents and some will not. To be fair, we must pay according to ratio. This does not punish investments.

Now sure: the strong guys may never get to be able to be rich: but that does not matter...that is not an issue with government. We have to be fair for everyone and so it is like giving a handicap bonus to less experienced bowlers so they can play against really good bowlers. Not my fault you got the chances to become bigger and better and I didn't.

Trotskey wanted a firm middle class approach. Not only do we bring down the super rich, but at the same time must raise the very poor. No insentive to get surplus as you put it: it's a type of communism and those people against the system (people who want capitalism) can just leave if they want.

[OldTrees]

I think you took the example a little too far out of context.

You will want to reread what I wrote.
I was not comparing one person with an opportunity to another without the opportunity. I was comparing a single person's options to improve or not to improve. Under the wage system proposed, anyone with the opportunity to improve gains nothing relative to if they don't improve and have to expend time and money to pay for that improvement. Since people rarely pay for nothing, I would predict significance less self improvement.

So the unequal opportunities for improvement was completely unrelated to my critique.

While the cause is different, I suspect that the average quality under this wage system would resemble that in Harrison Bergeron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron#Plot_summary) relative to a wage system that did not punish self improvement.

[northcity4]

This is going even far more off topic.

Point is: 1) re direct money from Rich (no longer taking that big share) to the people who work (working class). 2) Reward according to work was first proposed. The issue was that if I was unlucky and born in a place where my skills/talents are un-useful, then I would make very little. So, 3) New proposition to reward according to each persons ability AND give to each according to their need. Now if I am born in an area where my skills and talents are not useful, I am not out of luck. I will get what I need (although might not make as much as the talented) so I do make as much...in a ratio sense. This way, we factor out the luck. The talented get more, only because they need more. I get less only because I need less.

Having said that: I will answer your question. Thank you for clarifying.

What happens when someone doesn't feel like improving? Trotskey then poses 3 views to go with.

1) As far as wages...at least you will get fed according to your need. At least you get comfort and stuff...but the more talented will make more money, so there is incentive to grow their.

-->this option can obviously lead to inequality due to 'luck' of being more talented, so Trotskey re assigns work back into the equation.

Let's say I am weak and cut down 10 trees out of the 300 cut. I make 3.3% of the income + stuff that I need. This 'need' is like a handicap in bowling so even less experiences bowlers can bowl with the elite.

2) Use norms. Have things like peer pressure to make you be the best you can be. Considered laziness to not do you best...this includes abilities. See, when you think of being lazy in not improving to your best: you are thinking about yourself. 'There is no incentive to get better since I can just get a handicap anyways.'

3) If #2 fails, use fear...but this is a last resort.

Trotskey really wants #2 to work.

----> I have the notes to really bring these points together, but please let me email a friend of mine about your particular issue. I want to make sure I answer your question on the handicap situation rather than continue with the money example trotskey continues with.

[OldTrees]

----> I have the notes to really bring these points together, but please let me email a friend of mine about your particular issue. I want to make sure I answer your question on the handicap situation rather than continue with the money example trotskey continues with.

Stop. I did not ask a question about the Harrison Bergeron situation. You thought I did. This conflict should make you question if you understood what my question was.


Let me give an example of how the wage system works and the cost to improvement.
John is a lumberjack. He wants to build a new room on his house with his wages. He has two options.

Option 1: Status Quo
John continues to work as a lumberjack and after a year has spent enough money to complete the room.

Option 2: Self improvement
John uses time and money to work out and get stronger. After a year of working out in his free time John starts to work on the room. Since the lumber he is expected to bring in was adjusted based on his new strength, John does not see an increase in wages. As a result it takes a year to accumulate enough money to complete the room.

In the first example it would take a year to build the room. In the second example it still would take a year to build the room. In the second example John would spent a year's worth of free time and money for no benefit. John is smart enough to realize that spending effort for nothing is foolish. Thus the wage system discouraged self improvement.

Your post included 3 responses to this situation:
1) Let everyone cease to improve
2) Use peer pressure to encourage irrational behavior
3) Use fear to enforce irrational behavior
Can you see how these fail to address my concern? The first does nothing to change the problem and both the second and third suggest forcing people to do irrational behavior.

[northcity4]

Well, they answered your question.

You asked what is the point of improving my skills if the benefits do not continue? And you example is exactly what I interpreted.

Now, after emailing my friend, I was able to clarify a few things:

We go from work reward to ability/need reward. I can now safely say this: wages are gone. Wages will only create more inequality.

Next: At first, Trotskey agrees, should we have a soviet revolution: people will be from a capitalist society. If we continue to enforce the notion: be the best you can be for the sake of everyone (like the war effort or mass produce), then over time (the bible has a saying it will take 7 generations to forget the sins of their past, but Trotskey never specifies how long), people will care less about themselves and more for the Good of the people.

Let me explain.
John comes from a capitalist society which is now communism.

Jack was born strong. He can produce a lot. There are others in this community that are weak though. So, to be fair, we give according to need and ability which means no matter how much stronger Jack gets, he will only get the same thing (like at a job where no matter how much better you get, your boss doesn't raise your wage).

So, why should Jack get better then.
1) Jack is selfish, which is common right now, but soon Jack will learn it is no longer about him (capitalism), but if it is about everyone. The amount of lumber produced is what is important, not who did the most. What this does is put Jack on a sports team and no matter how talented Jack is above everyone else, his reward for a championship will be the same reward all the other players receive.

2) We need to think about the Good of the country.
a) war time, and you keep complaining that I should get rewarded more for making the most weapons. What you are actually doing is distracting others and if you don't be quiet, more will get distracted=less weapons=the army cannot do as well=perceived as treason. So, you will get jailed=have to spend money and time housing you in jail...all because you thought about yourself (extreme example, but Trotskey says this).

b) poor people: maybe we are producing to make more wood to make more houses for those who don't have a house yet. If Jack keeps thinking 'I shouldn't get stronger because I won't be rewarded more,' then less wood will be produced=less houses per month for people who need them

So, to eliminate this selfishness, we continue to enforce the notion: don't be selfish, think about everyone else. Be the best you can be so you be the best help for those in need. Over time, Trotskey believes that some generations forward will not be selfish at all. Without capitalism, selfishness cannot grow.

Another view: No charities. So, to be fair, Jack may have to take 10% work time off so others could work as well. They will be rewarded according to need and ability (same amount as Jack).

Both these views (points 1 and 2 + another view) illustrate a non-selfish society that works for the good of everyone while not letting people be lazy.

Now, without wages...how will people get what they need?
1) Will be fed at work accordingly. So, Jack will probably get the most food.
2) In stores now, you take what you need and public pressure will make it so you don't hoard a store. Force may come if necessary.
3) No expansion to big scale homes and businesses. That is selfish.
Now: Trotskey does allow for small businesses (i talked about those earlier), I will explain that later (You didn't ask, but I know it is an issue that will come up later).

[Marsu]

I'm really sorry, but: lol.

[northcity4]

This works. Why you lolling?

[cometbah]

1.

Trotskey wanted

Trotskey really wants

Trotskey agrees

From where are you getting these information?
I don't want to debate about 'ism's again, but what you describe sounds to me to be far removed from Trotsky's position.

One example: Trotskyism focuses on bringing a feudal society towards communism, not a matured capitalist one.

2.
(Regardless of whether you are describing Trotskyism)

Would there be 'wages' at all?

yes

How would you address one of the root problems of capitalism, i.e. that of alienation, if you are using a wage system and recognize the reification of capital value?

[northcity4]

Marx and Trotsky and Leninism all have a similar theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism. All basically want to eliminate capitalism and from this source, Trotsky wants to over throw feudalism.
 
Marx does play a key role in this theory as well (I believe that is who you are referring to, please correct me if I am wrong).

Also, I take back my answer. After Trees' post, I corrected it 'there would be no wages.'

So, I am not sure if I understand your question now.