 |
Under socialism, will everyone make the exact same amount of money?
|
|
|
Archive
Multimedia
|
Author: CPUSA
|
First published 03/31/2008 09:37
by {article_topic_desc}
|
Marc Brodine, Washington State Communist Party USA chair, dispels a widespread myth propagated by the US ruling class that under socialism everyone will make the exact same amount of money.
Do you want everyone to have an equal salary, equal housing, etc.? The most brilliant scientist should live the same as, say, a taxi driver?
You say that with such a sneering tone! Actually, under communism the motto “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” envisions not some abstract, total equality, but rather a sensible, humane distribution of responsibilities and income. In other words, still some significant differences in wages depending on the type, quality, and quantity of work an individual contributes. And a wage gap between the lowest and highest paid workers on the order of the highest being paid about 8 times the lowest. The goal of a socialist U.S. would not be to eliminate all wage differentials, but to bring them back into a sensible range.
The (fairly conservative) Parade Magazine in a yearly review of what people earn several years ago, printed a column by Associate Editor Andrew Tobias which pointed out that 20 years ago, the wage gap between the average worker and average CEO compensation was about 1 to 40. But in 2002, that ratio had grown to about 1 to 560! This is gross inequality, and has nothing to do with any growth in the real contributions CEOs make (usually, quite the opposite).
Similarly with housing—we don’t envision housing that is exactly equal in all respects, or envision making any change in the private ownership of reasonably-sized houses. But to have millions homeless (current estimates range up to 6 million) on the one hand, and houses like Bill and Melinda Gates’ mansion, with tens of thousands of square feet at a cost exceeding 50 million dollars, is an outrage to common sense and common decency.
A socialist U.S. would have a policy of greatly expanding the construction of apartments and houses to meet the needs of a growing population (current estimates are that the U.S. needs something like 1 to 2 million more housing units every year than are currently being constructed! There would be problems to solve, such as figuring out how to lessen the environmental impact of industry and construction, how to fund such a massive construction effort, and others, but until we undertake such a program, homelessness will continue to rise. As long as the only consideration in housing construction is profit, to the exclusion of need, homelessness will continue to rise. Socialism wouldn’t eliminate consideration of profit and cost, just not make it the sole determining factor.
The rewards for skill and talent in socialist countries are real, just not extreme like in capitalist countries. For example, instead of paying a few movie actors millions, more actors would be paid a living wage, resulting in real benefits for the real talents of many more people. (Right now, while a few actors are paid in excess of $20 million per movie, something like 90% of the membership in the Screen Actor’s Guild makes less than $10,000 a year from acting—not enough to live on). In other words, the gross inequality of our society penalizes and discourages most talent, while relentlessly attempting to produce blockbusters and blockbuster profits. In a socialist economy, there would still be a difference between the wages of extras and bit actors and “stars,” but there would be living wages paid to the lowest, and reasonably high wages paid to the highest, instead of poverty on the one hand and obscene wealth at the other.
|
|
