[ThePublicOpinions]

In socialism, assuming we have a society which is fundamentally egalitarian, why would anyone want to do the rough jobs like taking out the trash or catching chickens?

[Vera Politica]

why would anyone want to do the rough jobs like taking out the trash

Who knows how any individual socialist nation would organize their economy. In any case, it is peculiar that garbage collection is a 'career'. I see no need to have this task deemed a particular form of employment.

Hell, get the University students to do it and other forms of repugnant low-skill labor (those at least which would not require attached, formal employment) while they get free education.

In any case, there is no use speculating on these points. Each and every socialist state would be quite different in economic organization owing to their own peculiar geography, culture, economic basis, etc. Moreover, since socialist states would eliminate the welfare state but guarantee employment, one also sees how, maybe in certain nations, these 'low-skill', 'low-desire' jobs would be filled up quite quickly.

I may be off-base, but I am trying to get a very general point across.

I don't know the details but you may also want to see how, for example, the USSR took out the trash. I hardly think garbage collecting is any real issue or impediment for socialist nations

[Beren]

why would anyone want to do the rough jobs like taking out the trash

It must be a very important and relevant question, since - if I remember correctly - that's not the first time it's being asked on PoFo. Karl Marx should have given an explicit answer, I don't understand why he wasted so much time and effort to create weird ideas instead.

[Vera Politica]

Karl Marx should have given an explicit answer, I don't understand why he wasted so much time and effort to create weird ideas instead.

Marx's core works were never interested in prescriptive descriptions of future socialist states. In fact, in many writings, he dispelled such tactics as "utopian socialism". More to the point, Marx thought describing communism was utterly utopian, but I guess giving certain prescriptions for transitory socialist states would not be all that bad. This, however, was not of real interest to Marx. Marx is often thought of as a political philosopher, but he is much closer to a social scientist (although many of his writings have implications for political philosophy).

I find it utterly bizarre to criticize Marx for not giving us a social sketch so we know how to collect garbage after the revolution -- why would there be a "socialist" theory on garbage collection?

[Lokakyy]

I find it utterly bizarre to criticize Marx for not giving us a social sketch so we know how to collect garbage after the revolution -- why would there be a "socialist" theory on garbage collection?

It is also a rather anachronist question, since garbage collection as a paid profession was just beginning to emerge in the late 19th century Europe. The amount of waste generated was nowhere near the current amounts, with biowaste and profitably recyclable material such as cloth, metal, wood and paper dominating before the advent of plastics. Whatever trash was produced, was either taken out and disposed by the servant class among the rich or in many European poorer districts, simply dumped out of the window to rot.

[Sceptic]

The op made the example of 'garbage collection' which I think, by and large, detracts from if not overcomplicates the question.

Why would people do any work at all without proportional payment

They wouldn't.

[Vera Politica]

Why would people do any work at all without proportional payment

But no one really argues that a socialist system is one in which nominally equal wages are provided. In fact, Marx argues precisely against this in his polemics against the German socialist party (that is in his Critique of the Gotha Programme). The point, Marx thinks, is to simply abolish wages -- now I don't think (but correct me if I'm wrong) that a socialist system is one in which wages are abolished. Although, I imagine that the extent to which this is true will vary from one country to the next in proportion to their state of economic development.

[Sceptic]

But no one really argues that a socialist system is one in which nominally equal wages are provided. In fact, Marx argues precisely against this in his polemics against the German socialist party (that is in his Critique of the Gotha Programme). The point, Marx thinks, is to simply abolish wages -- now I don't think (but correct me if I'm wrong) that a socialist system is one in which wages are abolished. Although, I imagine that the extent to which this is true will vary from one country to the next in proportion to their state of economic development.

Very well but without private enterprise seemingly there is no mechanism such as supply and demand for generally determining wealth disparaties. Generally speaking factors like greater productivity, risk and general desirability of labour can be accounted for by price differentiation under the capitalist mode of production.

I don't think it's 'utopian' to argue that it would indeed be a disastrous plan to waltz into a systematically different socioeconomic reorganisation blindfolded. The same could be said of laissez-faire.

[Decky]

In socialism, assuming we have a society which is fundamentally egalitarian, why would anyone want to do the rough jobs like taking out the trash or catching chickens?

The same way it's done under capitalism and the same way it was in the Soviet Union, some jobs have higher pay.

Socialism =/= to equal pay.

An alternate solution is that between the ages of 18-20 everyone has to work in one of the the less desirable jobs but then won't have to do them after that. This would benefit society in all sorts of ways. In Britain you get a lot of morons claiming binmen (who get a relatively high wage for unskilled labour) are payed too much. Once someone has done it they would not say that.

I like this idea best because it would eliminate class very quickly, everyone would have had experience of difficult, traditionally low status work and these people would not be looked own on

[Vera Politica]

Very well but without private enterprise seemingly there is no mechanism such as supply and demand for generally determining wealth disparaties.

Wealth disparities are found prior to market capitalism and private enterprise. There is no reason to think, then, that only market mechanisms determine wealth disparities.

[Beren]

I find it utterly bizarre to criticize Marx for not giving us a social sketch so we know how to collect garbage after the revolution -- why would there be a "socialist" theory on garbage collection?

I wonder whether you realized or not that I was being sarcastic, actually. Or I just meant to be?

[Vera Politica]

I wonder whether you realized or not that I was being sarcastic, actually. Or I just meant to be?

The disadvantages of cyber-text. Sorry Beren, sarcasm noted

[Sceptic]

Wealth disparities are found prior to market capitalism and private enterprise. There is no reason to think, then, that only market mechanisms determine wealth disparities.

I didn't mean to suggest wealth disparities could not occur without markets, rather that the market was needed to determine the right level of wealth disparities in an economy (this is determined by consumer preference and is the only accurate measure of utility).

Also, I can think of two problems with your analogy:

1. By making an empirical statement (Wealth disparities are found prior to market capitalism and private enterprise) you have not addressed the logic of my argument.
2. An empirical statement requires validification.

On point two, I would be interested to hear the historical background in any case because I imagine that there would be at least some form of market organisation, even where land was tied into traditional practice.

Even if this was not the case, it can, legitimately be argued that this type of economic organisation would not be sufficient to organise complex industrial processes in the 21st Century or beyond (the economy can only become increasingly technical).

Generally speaking the individual can only know a relatively small portion of society and its inner workings.

[Vera Politica]

I didn't mean to suggest wealth disparities could not occur without markets, rather that the market was needed to determine the right level of wealth disparities in an economy (this is determined by consumer preference and is the only accurate measure of utility).

Also, I can think of two problems with your analogy:

1. By making an empirical statement (Wealth disparities are found prior to market capitalism and private enterprise) you have not addressed the logic of my argument.
2. An empirical statement requires validification.

Well, as your argument stood (without further clarification), yes, indeed, my comment did counter-address the argument. It is only with the additional thought (that markets are needed to determine the right level of wealth disparities in an economy) that my comment no longer addresses it. It is quite uncharitable to reformulate the proposition and then accuse my comment of not addressing it. It addressed the original proposition.

That being said, I have no idea what you mean by 'right'. In Marxian analysis, moral concepts and relations do not figure into economic analysis. Therefore, the 'right' wealth disparities are simply what are determined by the market and there is no way to think of it differently. Thus, for Marx, a 'fair' wage is merely the wage determined by the market -- and it was on this crucial point that he disagreed with utopian socialists. Marxism has never been about 'fair' wages or 'equal' wages. In any case, we are getting off course. In socialist societies, most often, it is simply the State that will determine the right wealth disparities (but I may be wrong on this point).

Now I wish to emphasize a point before we speak of "empirical validation". By wealth disparities I have meant, up to this point, wage disparities. The labor market (inherent to free labor which is simply the commodification of labor) is quite new. There have been pockets of the working class around for quite a long time in history, but it is only with the advent of capitalism that we moved toward a free-labor mode of production where the price of certain wage-labor would vary (by country) determined by the market (largely by the degree at which the wage-laborer is replaceable). The wealth disparities of a Lord and a serf, for example, were not determined by the market but, largely, by hereditary lineage (in turn determined by service to the crown). This would be one clear example where wealth disparities (in this case it would not be wages, of course, the idea being that the source of wealth in feudalism was not determined by the price of any particular commodity, certainly not by the price of wage-labor) were not determined by the market (precisely because there was no market for labor). I am not an economic historian, however, so I am not entirely confident with this explanation.

[Sceptic]

...

How frustrating - I did just lose my response to you.

[Vera Politica]

How frustrating - I did just lose my response to you.

yes, this has happened to me too many times as well
Do not worry, take your time and if ever you muster the will to respond once again I will read it.

[pojut]

I like to think that the average person craves not only recognition, but accomplishment as well. In a socialist society, this recognition and accomplishment comes through by seeing that the person next to you is cared for. For many, this isn't a sufficient reward, as they require DIRECT recognition in the form of wealth, property, or something similar. There's nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong, but I think if people actually practiced what they preached in regards to helping their fellow (wo)man, some form of Socialism would be the natural outcome.

If everyone took care of the person next to them rather than themselves, everyone would be taken care of.

[Sceptic]

...

Sorry for taking so long...

Well, as your argument stood (without further clarification), yes, indeed, my comment did counter-address the argument. It is only with the additional thought (that markets are needed to determine the right level of wealth disparities in an economy) that my comment no longer addresses it. It is quite uncharitable to reformulate the proposition and then accuse my comment of not addressing it. It addressed the original proposition.

Its ok, all I meant to say was that I was looking for a logical rather than empirical defence.

That being said, I have no idea what you mean by 'right'. In Marxian analysis, moral concepts and relations do not figure into economic analysis. Therefore, the 'right' wealth disparities are simply what are determined by the market and there is no way to think of it differently. Thus, for Marx, a 'fair' wage is merely the wage determined by the market -- and it was on this crucial point that he disagreed with utopian socialists. Marxism has never been about 'fair' wages or 'equal' wages. In any case, we are getting off course. In socialist societies, most often, it is simply the State that will determine the right wealth disparities (but I may be wrong on this point).

Yes, the terminology 'right' was not a moral term but used in an economic sense, in fact I implied the definition in that same sentence: 'this is determined by consumer preference and is the only accurate measure of utility'.

Now I wish to emphasize a point before we speak of "empirical validation". By wealth disparities I have meant, up to this point, wage disparities. The labor market (inherent to free labor which is simply the commodification of labor) is quite new. There have been pockets of the working class around for quite a long time in history, but it is only with the advent of capitalism that we moved toward a free-labor mode of production where the price of certain wage-labor would vary (by country) determined by the market (largely by the degree at which the wage-laborer is replaceable). The wealth disparities of a Lord and a serf, for example, were not determined by the market but, largely, by hereditary lineage (in turn determined by service to the crown). This would be one clear example where wealth disparities (in this case it would not be wages, of course, the idea being that the source of wealth in feudalism was not determined by the price of any particular commodity, certainly not by the price of wage-labor) were not determined by the market (precisely because there was no market for labor). I am not an economic historian, however, so I am not entirely confident with this explanation.

Yes, I do not dispute anymore that wealth disparities can be determined in absence of market. What I had meant was whether they could be determined in a way that is proportional to productivity in terms of both entrepeneurship (well in the Socialist economy co-ordinating factors of production will be the task of the State Manager - but you can see what I mean) and labour.

[ThePublicOpinions]

I'm not sure why my answer to this question was deleted but I will try again. In the 30s, when this question came up, it was treated very seriously by socialist thinkers. Their answer at the time was 'there would be a new socialist man', who out of love for the state would take out the garbage. Still the issue of motivation is not nearly as big as the issue of calculation, which is unsurmountable.

[ingliz]

In socialism, assuming we have a society which is fundamentally egalitarian

Why would you assume that?