Re: [OPE] market socialism

alejandro_agafonow@yahoo.es

COCKSHOTT: «What we argue against is the idea that particular trades or professions as a whole should be paid at a higher rate.»

In this case you are allowing a higher payment for those abundant productive skills.

As well as you allow a higher labour token imputation for those goods experimenting an increase in their demand (increase in their scarcity), how come you don’t allow higher payment for those scarce productive skills?

A. Agafonow

----- Mensaje original ----
De: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Para: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Enviado: jueves, 3 de julio, 2008 1:50:39
Asunto: RE: [OPE] market socialism

We advocate eaual payment to labour. If one person works harder and is more productive
as a result then they get more. As Marx says, payment according to labour is still
a right in inequality since productive capacities differ.

What we argue against is the idea that particular trades or professions as a whole
should be paid at a higher rate.

Paul Cockshott
Dept of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
+44 141 330 1629
www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/

-----Original Message-----
From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of Alejandro Agafonow
Sent: Wed 7/2/2008 10:34 PM
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
Subject: Re: [OPE] market socialism

The question of equally remunerate or not, refers to tow rivalry principles:

1) «From each according to his ability, to each according to his necessities.»

2) «From each according to his ability, to each according to his labour.»

Jerry advocates the first one, the communist principle conceived by Marx.

But those socialists against the first principle don't advocate a full second principle.

Paul, you and Allin thought in a system of labour gradation of three levels according to productivity. You don't advocate perfectly equal payment!
A. Agafonow

----- Mensaje original ----
De: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Para: wrighti@acm.org; Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Enviado: miércoles, 2 de julio, 2008 22:18:11
Asunto: RE: [OPE] market socialism

Equal pay for equal labour does not mean equal pay per hour if there is
some objective basis for measuring the comparative performance of people
doing the same task. In principle payment according to labour is compatible
with piece rates if the work is such that these are meaningful.

If piece rates are not meaningful, objections to equal hourly pay comes down
to professional and sexual prejudice.

Paul Cockshott
Dept of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
+44 141 330 1629
www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/

-----Original Message-----
From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu on behalf of Ian Wright
Sent: Wed 7/2/2008 7:30 PM
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
Subject: Re: [OPE] market socialism

>> I don't understand the motivation for wanting to
>> pay everyone the same. It makes no sense to me, although I'm open to
>> counter-arguments. 
> 
> 
> Hi Ian:
> 
> You don't understand the desire for equality? 

I understand it well enough, which is why I think workers will in
general not want to pay each other an identical wage, since they know in
practice that not everyone acts equally.

Of course, in a democratic firm the members are free to pay each other
an identical wage if they so wish -- by voting for such a distribution.

And surely this is better than ... imposing an equal wage?

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

      ______________________________________________ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.

      ______________________________________________ 
Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente.

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope