[CasX]

Interesting. From a speech by Stalin, 1931.

What is the cause of the fluidity of manpower?

The cause is the wrong structure of wages, the wrong wage scales, the "Leftist" practice of wage equalization. In a number of factories wage scales are drawn up in such a way as to practically wipe out the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, between heavy and light work. The consequence of wage equalization is that the unskilled worker lacks the incentive to become a skilled worker and is thus deprived of the prospect of advancement; as a result he feels himself a "visitor" in the factory, working only temporarily so as to "earn a little money" and then go off to "try his luck" in some other place. The consequence of wage equalization is that the skilled worker is obliged to go from factory to factory until he finds one where his skill is properly appreciated.

Hence, the "general" drift from factory to factory; hence, the fluidity of manpower.

In order to put an end to this evil we must abolish wage equalization and discard the old wage scales. In order to put an end to this evil we must draw up wage scales that will take into account the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, between heavy and light work. We cannot tolerate a situation where a rolling-mill worker in the iron and steel industry earns no more than a sweeper.

We cannot tolerate a situation where a locomotive driver earns only as much as a copying clerk. Marx and Lenin said that the difference between skilled and unskilled labour would exist even under socialism, even after classes had been abolished; that only under communism would this difference disappear and that, consequently, even under socialism "wages" must be paid according to work performed and not according to needs. But the equalitarians among our economic executives and trade-union officials do not agree with this and believe that under our Soviet system this difference has already disappeared. Who is right, Marx and Lenin or the equalitarians? It must be assumed that it is Marx and Lenin who are right. But it follows from this that whoever draws up wage scales on the "principle" of wage equalization, without taking into account the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, breaks with Marxism, breaks with Leninism.

In every branch of industry, in every factory, in every shop, there is a leading group of more or less skilled workers who first and foremost must be retained if we really want to ensure a constant labour force in the factories. These leading groups of workers are the principal link in production. By retaining them in the factory, in the shop, we can retain the whole labour force and radically prevent the fluidity of manpower. But how can we retain them in the factories? We can retain them only by promoting them to higher positions, by raising the level of their wages, by introducing a system of wages that will give the worker his due according to qualification.

And what does promoting them to higher positions and raising their wage level mean, what can it lead to as far as unskilled workers are concerned? It means, apart from everything else, opening up prospects for the unskilled worker and giving him an incentive to rise higher, to rise to the category of a skilled worker. You know yourselves that we now need hundreds of thousands and even millions of skilled workers. But in order to build up cadres of skilled workers, we must provide an incentive for the unskilled workers, provide for them a prospect of advancement, of rising to a higher position. And the more boldly we adopt this course the better, for this is the principal means of putting an end to the fluidity of manpower. To economize in this matter would be criminal, it would be going against the interests of our socialist industry.

Hence, the task is to put an end to the fluidity of manpower, to do away with wage equalization, to organize wages properly and to improve the living conditions of the workers.

[Sheep...]

No Communist, Liberal at best.

[Gothmog]

-Stálin is basically right here. However, this should be put inside the context of a backward country attemptin to achieve fast modernization. As the country develops and overall skill of laborers improve, then wage inequality will decrease again. It´s naive for socialists to fight for absolute equality in the transitional society. That´s why I say Stálin´s economic policies were right, despite the incredible human cost of USSR modernization.

[Sheep...]

All it would have done/did was ingrain a economic caste system on the people, he wasn't abolishing classes just changing their definition. Gorby was just carrying out and modernizing his plans it seems.
J.S. wounded the the original humanistic S.U. Gorby just put it out of its misery.

[Gothmog]

All it would have done/did was ingrain a economic caste system on the people, he wasn't abolishing classes just changing their definition. Gorby was just carrying out and modernizing his plans it seems.
J.S. wounded the the original humanistic S.U. Gorby just put it out of its misery.

-Class is not to be abolished in the transitional society, althought many of us believe that a socialist country must have low levels of inequality (which, btw, many of those countries had, Ginni indexes from Eastern Europe countries were in the range of 0,19-0,30, which are pretty good). In a socialist country, each one must be paid according to his work, so skilled workers and technicians must receive better wages. On the other hand, no one must be "free" to exploit the work of others. That is what socialist means. What lacked in USSR were social contro over allocation of resources (planning) which led to waste and relatively small improvement in living standards (when considered the accumulation effort in Stalin´s years)

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

Afenelon is essencially right on the conditions in a socialist society.

The "Leftists" which Stalin refers to are people like Sheep...who want to push to a communist society without first reaching the necessary development of society.

The fact is...in a a society in transition to socialism as the USSR was...social differences were not completely abolished. The prinsicple of "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need"...is a principle which comes into play only when society reaches the necessary stage of development...i.e. communism.

In socialism this principle cannot be applied and must not be applied...because society has not advanced that far enough. In a transitional society as the USSR was...the leading principle was "from each according to his ability; to each according to his work "...and not need.

Since this is a principle which both Marx and Lenin advocated for a tansitional society...than Stalin was only carrying out this essential principle of Marxism-Leninism. He was absolutely right.


Was this a "market reform"?? Of course not...This is actually a very essencial aspect of Marxism-Leninism...becasue if it is not implemented in this transitional stage...than the resulting problem would be the fluidity of manpower as Stalin describes it.

[CasX]

But how do you judge work?

"We cannot tolerate a situation where a locomotive driver earns only as much as a copying clerk. Marx and Lenin said that the difference between skilled and unskilled labour would exist even under socialism, even after classes had been abolished; that only under communism would this difference disappear and that, consequently, even under socialism "wages" must be paid according to work performed and not according to needs."

How long does a copying clerk have to work to equate to an 8-hour shift by a locomotive driver?

Stalin seems to be drawing a line between skilled and unskilled labour. Whether they are skilled or not seems to have no relevance to how much work they do. To each according to his work, yet under this scheme a cleaner, or similarly unskilled worker, working all day would earn less than a mechanic or usefully skilled worker.

"whoever draws up wage scales on the "principle" of wage equalization, without taking into account the difference between skilled and unskilled labour, breaks with Marxism, breaks with Leninism."

The difference is not "work" as socialism would apply "to each according to their work" but to their level of skills. To each according to their production ability - which is a market reform, isn't it?

[Sheep...]

Yes maybe so, but the fact is that it would establish inequalities which would be very VERY hard to eliminate, it would dope the more skilled workers up with higher wages thus allowing them to buy more material goos made by people with lower wages; and when change has to come and when equalities in wages are trying to be established the skilled workers literally become a new middle class and thus a road block.
It would create a new managerial class as we saw in the SU.
Its either all or nothing.

[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

I don't know what you are saying Cas. To me it makes perfect sense...

A clerk working 8 hours...doing a relativly unskilled work...has a much easier job than a locomotive operator working 8 hours doing a much more skilled work.

Here the difference would be more between light industry and heavy industry. Its not productivity...but the ammount of work put into it.

Besides...the differances in wages were minimal...compared to a capitalist society. In a capitalist society the CEO of a company would make HUNDREDS of times more than the average worker (In Russia today the difference between a worker and a CEO is about 14 THOUSAND times)...In USSR of Stalin...it would only be 1/2 or maybe 2 times more. I know this from Albania...average worker's wage was 4000-5000 leks...engineers wage was 7000-8000 leks. This difference is insignificant...

[sergei]

"In Russia today the difference between a worker and a CEO is about 14 THOUSAND times"

How sad - the Monarchy is indeed back...

A differential in pay based on a differential in measurable work is reasonable. But is it likely that the CEO actually provides 14 thousand times the output of a worker? I think not.

[Gothmog]

But how do you judge work?

-You made a good point here. How to calculate the intrinsic value of work is a thing that has been torturing the minds of socialist planners in the last 80 years. This become even more dificult in advanced societies, where production is largely integrated and specialized. In market economies, the value of labor is largely determined by two factors:
1-Productivity
2-Demand and suppply of manpower for a given task (for instance, the value of an average private medical consultation in Brazil dropped by 50% in the last 9 years because we have a large increase in the number of physicians who complete their medical course in the last years-tyhe same calculation can be made for other works too)
However, althought this system seems to be fairly good in theory, in practice it results in massive levels of poverty and unequality. That´s is why essentially all governments, even the conservative ones, control the labor markets. This is accomplished by setting minimum wages, limits to working time, free vacations, social security and so on. So here we have a self regulated system who needs external controls. If those controls are loosened, like in the USA, what we have is relative stagnation of lower wages (because we have a surplus of unskilled manpower) and obscenely high wages among the CEO´s and other.
The situation is somewhat more complex in a planned economy, because we don´t have a labor market, so wages are the result of administrative decisions. Usually socialist planners try get a balance between the necessity to create incentives for people to work better and the necessity to avoid excessive wage unequalities, which may led to the restoration of capitalism. Furthermore, it is necessary to create special incentives to people who works in prioritary (strategic-not in the military sense, but speaking in economical terms) areas. Seems quite rational, but the system have some dangerous traps.
1-Those who take the administrative decisions may not have access to correct information and so they take wrong decisions (information is a crucial aspect in a planned economy and I believe the obstacles to the free information flux were very important in the USSR decline)
2-There is a lot of self interest involved in the process of allocating wages
3-The elites can give themselves non monetary material advantages to keep the impression of a low inequality level while simultaneously increasing their privileges
So, as you can see, the idea is quite good, but its implementation is very hard.

Stalin seems to be drawing a line between skilled and unskilled labour. Whether they are skilled or not seems to have no relevance to how much work they do. To each according to his work, yet under this scheme a cleaner, or similarly unskilled worker, working all day would earn less than a mechanic or usefully skilled worker.

If skilled and non skilled labor are paid the same, so people will prefer to do unskilled labor, since it involves more training and more responsability. Why will you spend years in a technical school or university if you get the same wages withouth losing your time? For a country like USSR, where ignorance was rampant this was a critical problem.

The difference is not "work" as socialism would apply "to each according to their work" but to their level of skills. To each according to their production ability - which is a market reform, isn't it?

-It is not a market reform because the wages are not established by the market, but by administrative decisions. This is a crucial point.

[Gothmog]

Yes maybe so, but the fact is that it would establish inequalities which would be very VERY hard to eliminate, it would dope the more skilled workers up with higher wages thus allowing them to buy more material goos made by people with lower wages; and when change has to come and when equalities in wages are trying to be established the skilled workers literally become a new middle class and thus a road block.
It would create a new managerial class as we saw in the SU.
Its either all or nothing.

-I agree with you about the risks of a managerial middle class being able to restore capitalism, since history give reason to you. But wage equality seems not to be very useful to avoid capitalist restoration Maoist China had the smallest levels of unequality (Ginni around 0,15 in 1976) and still they were able to restore capitalism. Of course, you could argue that wages should be even more equal, but this would led to nowhere, except to economic stagnation due to absolute lack of material incentives for people to work. What allowed restoration of capitalism was not wage unequality, but the concentration of power in the hands of a small elite, in the absence of real mechanisms of democratic control for the masses. If a small elite controls all the economic decisions, it is easy to them to restore capitalism even if their living standards are relatively close to the average citizen.

[B. H.]

I have to admit that I disagree with Stalin and Lenin on this.

First of all, it is purely subjective to say "so and so does more work than so and so". It is also purely subjective when one says "so and so should be paid more than so and so because he works harder". No one can define what kind of work is actually "harder" than someone elses or just how wage differences should be distributed in an absolute objective non-subjective fashion.

If Stalin had pressed harder and been more discriminatory in the people he trained for skilled positions, he would have not had the problems he did getting certain members of society motivated to work. He should have first of all taken those willing to do skilled jobs at the same pay as an unskilled worker, and trained them for the skilled position. By training people who did not want to do a particular job if they did not get more pay, he basically surrendered to the capitalist types at heart.

I know Marx defined exploitation as a capitalist taking the surplus from a business venture as his own and not giving it to his workers. However, Marx's term "exploitation" is really redundant unless all people are paid equally. Someone running a factory in the name of socialism can take what would be regarded as surplus profit in a capitalist society and say he was just getting paid his rightful salary. He just does an Orwellian double-speak so to speak.

One must be paid the same as others, and those who do not work must not eat. Anyone who tries to overthrow the system or refuses to work unless he/she gets paid more than others should be taken out and shot. That's just the way it would be and those who didn't like it have no one but themselves to blame for not changing their attitude.

[Proctor]

A clerk working 8 hours...doing a relativly unskilled work...has a much easier job than a locomotive operator working 8 hours doing a much more skilled work.

Oooh, big mistake!

Suppose that someone's job is breaking rocks with their head. It requires zero training, it is not what you'd call skilled work, and any fool can do it. But, it is not easy. It would be a hell of a lot harder than anything the engineer is doing.

But something that a lot of people don't seem to realise (normally anticommunists, but obviously not always) is that people don't choose their jobs on money alone. Suppose you could get $x an hour scrubbing toilets, and you could get $x an hour doing a job you enjoy. Can you really say to me that everyone will choose the toilets since people are to lazy to train for the cool job? C'mon!

[Gothmog]

One must be paid the same as others, and those who do not work must not eat. Anyone who tries to overthrow the system or refuses to work unless he/she gets paid more than others should be taken out and shot. That's just the way it would be and those who didn't like it have no one but themselves to blame for not changing their attitude.

-We should learn with the past mistakes. Attempts to implement a system like this in early USSR led to a dramatic economic decline (even after the Civil war was over) and eventually were replaced with the NEP. Communism is only possible in a economy with such a high productivity that people will produce much more than they can use (of course, in this case people will work less to avoid overproduction). To reach this state, individual incentives are necessary.

[B. H.]

One must be paid the same as others, and those who do not work must not eat. Anyone who tries to overthrow the system or refuses to work unless he/she gets paid more than others should be taken out and shot. That's just the way it would be and those who didn't like it have no one but themselves to blame for not changing their attitude.

-We should learn with the past mistakes. Attempts to implement a system like this in early USSR led to a dramatic economic decline (even after the Civil war was over) and eventually were replaced with the NEP. Communism is only possible in a economy with such a high productivity that people will produce much more than they can use (of course, in this case people will work less to avoid overproduction). To reach this state, individual incentives are necessary.

I disagree. If Lenin had been stronger handed he could have pulled it off without the NEP. Those who knew skilled jobs simply would not eat if they did not overproduce at whatever trade or position they had training for. You overproduce, you get what you need. You refuse to overproduce, you get nothing and what you do produce goes to someone else.

Like I said before, I have no problem putting a bullet through an anti-revolutionary bourgeoisie type's head and making an example of of them. I do believe the stories about Stalin and Lenin killing people en masse are false: lies made up in the West by the elites to scare people away from communism. Maybe it would have been better if Lenin had been much more of an asshole as well as Stalin. Those who wanted to live would just recognize the new way was the way it was going to be and would just get over it. They would be coerced to do their jobs until someone was trained that was willing to do the job without coercion earning the new communist "wage". The doctor with bourgeoisie tendencies could go shovel shit if he wished after a new communist minded person was trained to take his place as a doctor.


I'm sorry and I do not mean to be hateful or cruel, its just that I do not believe in pampering the old rich and bourgeosie---they will slit the workers throat unless they are reigned in and reigned in tight. the workers form a dictatorship, not a democracy. They will punish and destroy anyone who stands in their way. It is in all peoples self interest to support the new communist society: the workers get better living standards and the old rich and middle class get to stay alive as well has have a decent respectable living if they yield to the workers.

[Gothmog]

I disagree. If Lenin had been stronger handed he could have pulled it off without the NEP.

-If Lenin had stronger hand, and insisted on the policies you are suggesting, the Soviet population would have died from famine.

Those who knew skilled jobs simply would not eat if they did not overproduce at whatever trade or position they had training for. You overproduce, you get what you need. You refuse to overproduce, you get nothing and what you do produce goes to someone else.

This was actually tried and had a disastrous result. And the overproduction depends not on the will of an individual but on the general organization of factories, transports and so on. It makes decades for a backward country to reach the level of a developed one, which is still not enough for communism to be implanted.

Those who wanted to live would just recognize the new way was the way it was going to be and would just get over it. They would be coerced to do their jobs until someone was trained that was willing to do the job without coercion earning the new communist "wage". The doctor with bourgeoisie tendencies could go shovel shit if he wished after a new communist minded person was trained to take his place as a doctor.

-An excellent way to ruin the economy by alienating the btter trained and skilled elements of workforce. A gradual approach combining high economic growth strategies with gradual decrease on wage unequality works much better, don´t turns the middle class against the government and gives, in the long run, the same results you want. Of course, I´m not ignoring the conservative elements in the middle class that will sabotage the system, but those guys will simply lose their jobs if they don´t work well, this is a strategy of combining the carrot and the stick (you want just the stick). Forced labor (with short term sentences) is also an alternative for reeducation of the most hostile elements.

I'm sorry and I do not mean to be hateful or cruel, its just that I do not believe in pampering the old rich and bourgeosie---they will slit the workers throat unless they are reigned in and reigned in tight. the workers form a dictatorship, not a democracy. They will punish and destroy anyone who stands in their way.

-More than being hateful or cruel, you´re being simply naive, believing that you can impose this reign of terror withouth turning the people against you.

[B. H.]

Hello,


I'll respond later when I get back from work. Hope everyone has a good day.

[B. H.]

Some of my reply is inside the white box. I cannot get it out.

I disagree. If Lenin had been stronger handed he could have pulled it off without the NEP.

-If Lenin had stronger hand, and insisted on the policies you are suggesting, the Soviet population would have died from famine.

------->By starting the NEP, he compromised the revolution from the very start. What he should have done was tell the skilled workers and agronomists that if there was a shortage of food they would be held responsible. They would be the first ones to have their food ration cut off to give to others.

Those who knew skilled jobs simply would not eat if they did not overproduce at whatever trade or position they had training for. You overproduce, you get what you need. You refuse to overproduce, you get nothing and what you do produce goes to someone else.

This was actually tried and had a disastrous result. And the overproduction depends not on the will of an individual but on the general organization of factories, transports and so on. It makes decades for a backward country to reach the level of a developed one, which is still not enough for communism to be implanted.

------>I understand what you are saying. However, the capitalists never let us live down the fact that some were paid more than others. The fact that we compromised in one instance rewarded the boergoisie element in society and made them press for more and more. Better to show them who is boss and get it over with than let their mentality erode your society.

Those who wanted to live would just recognize the new way was the way it was going to be and would just get over it. They would be coerced to do their jobs until someone was trained that was willing to do the job without coercion earning the new communist "wage". The doctor with bourgeoisie tendencies could go shovel shit if he wished after a new communist minded person was trained to take his place as a doctor.

-An excellent way to ruin the economy by alienating the btter trained and skilled elements of workforce. A gradual approach combining high economic growth strategies with gradual decrease on wage unequality works much better, don´t turns the middle class against the government and gives, in the long run, the same results you want.

----->You still have a problem with "middle class mentality" folks. Junior is going to want to know why he isn't getting paid as much as poppa did when he ran the factory. Junior is going to pout and shit like a baby that he doesn't make as much as his daddy did in real $$$.

Of course, I´m not ignoring the conservative elements in the middle class that will sabotage the system, but those guys will simply lose their jobs if they don´t work well, this is a strategy of combining the carrot and the stick (you want just the stick). Forced labor (with short term sentences) is also an alternative for reeducation of the most hostile elements.

------>Tell the "middle class" types they can do what they are trained for or go out and work in Siberia during the winter months. -OR- they could go shovel cow shit somewhere to fertilize a collective farm.

I'm sorry and I do not mean to be hateful or cruel, its just that I do not believe in pampering the old rich and bourgeosie---they will slit the workers throat unless they are reigned in and reigned in tight. the workers form a dictatorship, not a democracy. They will punish and destroy anyone who stands in their way.

-More than being hateful or cruel, you´re being simply naive, believing that you can impose this reign of terror withouth turning the people against you.

------->I am not being naive. What happened in the past will happen again unless firmer measures are used. Stalin and Lenin honestly meant well and were not the booger bears portrayed by opportunistic academics and capitalist propagandists. However, if they HAD been and gotten it over with early the USSR may still be around today.

I'm sorry, but for about 25% of the population, socialism/communism is going to bring a lower living standard. It will raise the other 75% up and that is good, but the 25% who most likely will lose out will not go under without a fight. They will be a constant fifth column in any socialist society. All they understand is the jackboot and gun-butt in the face.

[Gothmog]

------->By starting the NEP, he compromised the revolution from the very start. What he should have done was tell the skilled workers and agronomists that if there was a shortage of food they would be held responsible. They would be the first ones to have their food ration cut off to give to others.

-By starting the NEP, Lenin actually saved the revolution. Did you study the economic situation of USSR in 1921? Civil war and war communism ruined the country There was a hyperinflation, the suppression of market mechanisms led the economy to an absolute chaos. Famine killed 5 million people in 1921-22. If you were in charge, would you have risked to worsen the situation? Want to have another example? Look at China in 1949-56. A gradual approach to nationalization, which included mixed economy companies with former capitalists, worked very well, with good economic growth and overall increase of living standards. So, Mao attempte to push for egaliratian communism in 1957-58. Did you know the results?

------>I understand what you are saying. However, the capitalists never let us live down the fact that some were paid more than others. The fact that we compromised in one instance rewarded the boergoisie element in society and made them press for more and more. Better to show them who is boss and get it over with than let their mentality erode your society.

-I think you´re confounding the capitalists with the middle class. Much of the better educated people are middle class and not capitalists. They live on wages too (but on higher wages). On capitalists, a compromise is necessary, since they had knowledge about business, which is valuable for a communist society. It is best tpo take their property and use them as managers or even form mixed economy enterprises with them and latter not allow inheritance of their share in those companies. On restoration of capitalism, I agree with you that there is that risk, but from my point it is more related to lack of people´s control than to former capitalists.

----->You still have a problem with "middle class mentality" folks. Junior is going to want to know why he isn't getting paid as much as poppa did when he ran the factory. Junior is going to pout and shit like a baby that he doesn't make as much as his daddy did in real $$$.

-Junior must study or learn another skilled job if he wants to have a middle class living standard. He won´t be allowed more than this. Continued economic growth will help Junior to be less unhappy.If possible, he may realize that he can be ever happier than in the former regime.

------>Tell the "middle class" types they can do what they are trained for or go out and work in Siberia during the winter months. -OR- they could go shovel cow shit somewhere to fertilize a collective farm.

-For an underdeveloped country with lack of skilled manpower, this is no more than waste and economic irrationality

I'm sorry and I do not mean to be hateful or cruel, its just that I do not believe in pampering the old rich and bourgeosie---they will slit the workers throat unless they are reigned in and reigned in tight. the workers form a dictatorship, not a democracy. They will punish and destroy anyone who stands in their way.

------->I am not being naive. What happened in the past will happen again unless firmer measures are used. Stalin and Lenin honestly meant well and were not the booger bears portrayed by opportunistic academics and capitalist propagandists. However, if they HAD been and gotten it over with early the USSR may still be around today.

-I disagree from you. It was probably impossible to be harsher than Lnin and Stalin were. The collapse of USSR is much more related the lack of democracy, since all the power was with the managerial class and the people din´t have control over them. This allowed that elite to restore capitalism.

I'm sorry, but for about 25% of the population, socialism/communism is going to bring a lower living standard. It will raise the other 75% up and that is good, but the 25% who most likely will lose out will not go under without a fight. They will be a constant fifth column in any socialist society. All they understand is the jackboot and gun-butt in the face.

-Socialism and communism itself don´t rise the living standards of anyone. A grwing economy rises living standards. What socialism does (or is supposed to do) is to share the benefits of economic growth, by keeping unequality at low levels. And by having high rates of growth, it is possible to rise living standards for 95% of people. The other will be a insignificant minority that must work in order to keep at least a middle class living standard After this generation is gone, then the trouble is the managerial elite. The answer here is democracy. This elite must serve the people, not the opposite. You can consider me a revisionist, but I don´t see another way to achieve socialism.