What do you think the maximum income should be?

youtube.com/watch?v=l91ISfcuzDw

0.
You don't own anything. You have stuff because I let you have it.

Our goal is to abolish classes, not to equalize them. That being said, a self-respecting social-democracy would enact an aggressively progressive tax plan to ensure a huge chunk of what's appropriated by capitalists today is invested in housing, healthcare, education, etc. This could arguably save capitalism in the long run, like the New Deal did in its own time.

It really depends on which gommie you ask.

A) Every worker should earn a the same hourly compensation regardless of profession, so that prestige and influence become the only reasons why someone would choose another job.

B) Different professions should earn different compensation, but it is fixed to the type of work done. There is a material incentive to learn a skilled profession, but nothing like a labor market or entrepreneurship.

As for the exact limit of B, how about twice, or even three times the minimum wage? Three times as big a house, three times as many cars, three times as much bacon. It should be possible to differentiate yourself without being a leech.

So what, a 100k labourbucks?

I don't see a reason to delimit the maximum labor vouchers a person can get; after all, they can't use them to exploit others like current money can.

perfect

People are entitled to the full value of their labor, if someone works longer hours or if the community deems their work particularly valuable they would obviously get more than someone who only works enough to put food on the table.
Under capitalism, the ruling class obtain the majority of their wealth not by working, but by ownership of private property- a landlord or trust fund kiddie receives a constant stream of money from the pockets of the working class without actually lifting a finger.

Attached: b7ea62b59eaba48cec97e4427f695a8a2cfb4e92.jpg (851x315, 66.83K)

A good start would be twice the global median. People who make over 20k a year are most def parasites.

20k a year is barely enough to live on, something like 80% of the US makes that or less.
It's certainly not enough to get ahead, let alone enough to save up for retirement, unless you picture retirement as living in a cardboard box and eating cat food.Because that's about all you'll get.
I don't know where you're living if you think that's somehow a lot of money, but trust me, it's not.
The cost of living here eats it up.

This meme need to die. Read Critique of the Gotha Program. Unless industry won't grow at all (or be upkept) and the elderly, sick and disabled are all going to be left to starve, then workers won't be getting the full value of their labour at all. There will need to be a deduction from income in communism just as there is in capitalism: the difference is that this deduction is decided upon socially and isn't used by a parasitic upper class to fuel a decadent lifestyle of passive consumption and luxury.

Yes, to be clear, 80% of amerikkkans are payed significantly more than they're worth. that they're ripped off for healthcare and rent is a different issue, though this is counter-balanced by cheap fuel and consumer goods.

It's funny how you can take a number that is clearly statistically a minority (twice the global median) and somehow turn it into a majority by believing only amerikkkans are human beings.

That's about 50 times more than the actual hours worked in a year on a 40 hour work-week, so no. Read Cockshott.

Depends on how you define "cheap".
Outside large urban areas, and even inside a few of them (owing to 3rd rate mass transit systems) owning a vehicle isn't a luxury, it's a necessity, and you have to figure in fuel consumption, monthly insurance costs, and annual licensing fees, and maintenance and repair cost.It adds up fast.
"Cheap consumer goods" is also misleading as the quality is typically shit, meaning you have to replace it frequently, it's unhealthy, etc.
Long story short, the vast majority have $500 or less in the bank, and are one accident or unexpected bill away from being wiped out financially.

Plenty of members of the bourgeoisie are also constantly on the verge of being wiped out financially, it doesn't change their class position. Perhaps americans could see socialism as being in their class interest if they were willing to exchange sane urban planning and cheaper healthcare and housing for less wages and perhaps less access to consumer goods, it could work. But that has to be made explicit, if you just say they deserve to be payed more you're essentially lying to them or embracing fascism. Most americans simply are not exploited and it's a trivial thing to figure out by comparing them to how 85% of the world lives.

The landed gentry have been basically gone for 70 odd years. Stop.
Also yeah, I'm a visitor. How do you guys solve the Economic calculation problem?
If an industry needs more workers, how can it attract them? In my country there is a shortage of tradesmen due to constant memeing that university is the only way, (And the fact that women that aren't white trash are practically bourgeoisie by default so they don't see tradies as humans). Tradesmen are earning more money because they are in higher demand as there is less of them. Fortunately, this should eventually balance things out as people will be more attracted to the profession due to the higher pay.

Thank you. The 1% isn't static. There's always a 1% in our current society, but many of the members do not stay there permanently.

Then why the hell would they be interested in socialism?

Idiot.

Possibly, but the 0.1% tends towards dynastic capitalism.

Socialism is not going to do this, isn't going to take their consumer goods and wages are a whole different topic. Working class conditions are going to straight up improve unconditionally (and dramatically in some areas), promising anything less than that is reiterating liberal talking points.

zero, everyone gibsmedats for me , im a low ai-que ooga booga unemployed pleb who leeches off welfare

Attached: 1518125592716.png (394x450, 16.76K)

More free time, cheap healthcare and rent, stabilizing planet's ecology, authentic community… lots of reasons.

Nope, if you think the entire world's population can sustain american levels of consumption you're totally disconnected from reality.

...

Thank you for correcting the record. Three (3) trump-coins™ have been deposited in your account.

Income equality is not a socialist principle.

Abolition of private property under a dictatorship of the proletariat is; this will eliminate the immanent contradictions of Capitalist production.

24 hours worth of labour vouchers/day.

Free healthcare
Abolition of rent

Exploitation describes a particular relation between those who purchase the commodity Labour Power for consumption productive of value greater than the wage-bill (capitalists), and those who sell their labour power at its value (wage-labourers).

For example, if we take the value of labour power to be £100, and we assume this money to reflect a labour time of 3 hours, if the worker is to work for 6 hours, then he will produce £200 worth of value. He has therefore spent 3 hours working for himself, and 3 hours working for somebody else. This surplus value (the embodied form of surplus labour) constitutes the increment on the capital sum advanced; the additional value created by the expenditure of human labour.

So the Capitalist advances a sum of money Capital, and purchases labour power (he must also purchase means of production, but these do not produce surplus value; they are simply consumed, and their values transmuted into the product). The movement is thus: M - C (LP + MP).

These two commodities, MP and LP, are productively consumed; here, "productive" is defined in capitalist terms, viz. producing surplus value through the expenditure of human labour over and above the value of the commodity labour power. We then produce a mass of commodities of a greater value than those productively consumed. However, in a capitalist society the contradiction between exchange-value and use-value in commodities is resolved through the recourse to a money form; therefore, in order that the capitalist may realise this newfound value for future productive consumption, the commodities must be sold at their value.

The movement goes like this:

M - C (LP + MP) - P - C' - M'

Note the M'. The Capitalist has, as if by magic, emerged with more objectified labour (in its money form) than he started with. Yet this is no magic trick, and the secret lies in production (not sale and purchase as bourgeois economics would claim); the labourer has produced value over and above that which was initially advanced for his labour power. He is, in crude terms, receiving out of this trade less than that which he puts in.

Once we view capitalist production as the quest for this surplus value, and labour power as the only commodity capable of producing this surplus value (as only humans can labour), then we come to see that the capitalist, in order that he should obtain the most surplus value, must seek to increase the intensity of work, increase the quantity produced in a given time through technological advancement, and seek to increase the mass of labourers in their employ, and to depress the value of labour-power.

Bear in mind, in the above overview I have assumed "perfect competition" such that goods sell at their value. In reality this is, of course, often not the case; but for brevity I've excluded it.

If you wish to read more about realisation of value in disequilibrium, see Volume 2 of Capital.

There's no point to an income cap because your income is based entirely on the SNL, and there's only 24 hours in a day and you need a third of those hours to sleep.

Btw, I should have mentioned that we see value as being defined by its labour content. Therefore labour power has a value equal to the labour time necessary to maintain it, which fluctuates with the value necessary to live. In the west, it is defined by political necessities too; years of militant labour struggle and political victories.

this

That's why there are many variants of socialism that go beyond just meaning workers owning the means of production. It's like saying "dealing with climate change is not a socialist principle."

All of them utterly utopian; one cannot possibly know the modes social organisation will assume after proletarian revolution. However, if we assume income to be dependent upon labour, with perhaps some differentials according to demand or skill (something broadly agreed upon by all sensible socialists), then income inequality seems highly likely.

In fact, it is questionable how surplus labour in unpleasant work could be extracted without such differential remuneration.

read samir amin u autist

I'm aware of his work, but I don't see what relevance it has to a rudimentary introduction to exploitation.

As I said, for simplicity I assume perfect competition (using an orthodox term that I expect he should understand). This implies no monopoly capitalism and distortions of reproduction and value arising thereform.

I am also decidedly not autistic.

This shit has been "solved" as early as its conception. Originally the market socialists btfo Mises on it in a debate using neoclassical theory, forcing him to change the goal posts from "it wont work theoretically" to "it wont work in practice". Then in the 1990s SFEcon double blew Mises the fuck out by fulfilling all his required criteria and showing that with proper algorithms a centralized planned economy could rise to the challenge of answering the calculation problem. Then Cockshott released "Towards a New Socialism" in 1993 and triple blew Mises the fuck out by showing that through cybernetic planning and algorithms you could easily take into account the needs of the populace and calculate the necessary output of industry, meaning that you don't even need to use money, and ended up putting the whole institute in damage control mode where their answer was basically "But could it really tho?". Even other an-caps have abandoned the calculation problem after realizing that historically the economic calculation "problem" was never really problem for, or the critical lynch pin of, most socialist economies.
Dude, I'm in trades. Machinists still make on average of about $16 to $20 an hour, and that's usually with a Union. If you think that's livable, think again because you'll most likely be living just under a living wage or just breaking even research.zippia.com/living-wage.html . I completed trade with a machinist certificate and now I'm trying to go instead for aircraft maintenance at a state school (cheaper then college, but still costs money) because all the jobs are leaving here and dying. At least with my A&P I have the chance to get work somewhere else that isn't shit pay, and even then you run the risk of working for some Chinese owned military maintenance contractor that pays you shit because they cycle in and out new guys like everyday day is hiring day and station themselves down south in a right to work state.

Attached: 63369aa6339e2d5adc413dd963244cc11c2e5f6e.jpg (750x742 143.95 KB, 115.18K)

Good post.

Cottrell, Michaelson, and Cockshott have shown labour time calculations as simply N log(N) (N = no. of different products). It was no doubt a forceful argument in his day (though scarcely tackled socialism - money can still be used if technology is too primitive), but now you'd simply need a couple of gigabytes RAM.

jstor.org/stable/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.5.2.0258

...

That post wasn't about imperialism, and imperialism has everything to do with exploitation anyways.

Most americans are not exploited as they receive imperialist superprofits, that's the whole point of the post. Learn to read.

You're wrong on both of your claim.

What a shitty post, kill yourself.