>I'm guessing under state capitalism this would still be a thing as individual labor power would be exchanged with the state under some socially calculated metric for fair wage?
Yeah, but remember that when I talk about state capitalism in the USSR I refer to the NEP, with the implementation of the first five year plan the socialist mode of production became dominant. However, in a system where wages exist without a labor market where you buy and sell labor power, wages are not the same as wage labor. I'm sure you've heard that Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Program does say that deductions need to be made to fund social programs and the extension of production, before the worker can be remunerated. It's true that the worker has nothing to give to society but their labor value
, this is crucially important because in capitalism you have nothing to give but your labor power
as a commodity. The latter is the cost of the reproduction of your labor ("how much does it take for the worker to show up tomorrow at my firm?" - meaning housing, food, transportation, etc.), creating an inherent race to the bottom. The way Marx outlines remuneration, and the way the Soviet Constitution enshrined it, was that it should be handed out according to labor value created, or as it was in the Constitution "according to quantity and quality of labor done". This was because the USSR did not have labor time accounting (and therefore no labor vouchers) but it does not change the character of the relation between the worker and the rest of society (at best, it could create false consciousness, because it partially still is a fetishized form of human relations, although vastly less fetishized than in capitalism). This different relation is also reflected with the absence of a labor market, there is no reserve army of labor (unemployment).
This all is supposed to whither away once communistic relations form with free associations of producers and the partial phasing-out the division of labor and social production (labor value).
>This is interesting anon, but under different relations of production how is a fair compensation to be determined with a variable to constant capital ratio?
There is still exploitation as long as you have variable capital in general. I was just referring to this because it's evidence that China is a different beast compared to capitalist countries to suggest that there might be no exploitation of man by man in some areas (!) of the Chinese state enterprises. I'm very carefully here because I don't know a contemporary Marxist who has studied this more in-depth (outside of Chinese Marxists of course).
In general we should abandon the concept of "fair". There are labor aristocrats in the automobile industry for example who earn $6000 a month but are often the most exploited workers because they create so much value. Meanwhile a sweatshop worker has a very low exploitation rate since they create very little value, but earns $30 a month. This is a contradiction on the surface, but it shows us that Marx's theory of gradual immiseration was a theory of relative immiseration
, which isn't always - but of course can be - creating absolute immiseration
. So I think we shouldn't use categories like "fair". Bourgeois apologetics always talk about how sweatshops are being "fair" because those workers are just not worth anything more, to that we should not respond that it's "unfair" (that would be the liberal response) but that it is an inherent result of "bourgeois fairness" (the legally codified exchange of equal values), something we need to sublate.
>Would if be aggregated as a sum of all the different ones? If so then each individual prole under a particularly oppressive form might get shafted for the social whole.
The socialist countries of the 20th century have kept strict tabs on marketization, even if it caused some economic problems, to prevent any form of unemployment for example, which was their showcase achievement they bragged about to the West. The basic premise of historical materialism is that the level of development of forces of production gives birth to relations of production (for example, the invention of agriculture giving rise to slave society), the CPC says that previous existing socialist countries underestimated the importance of this, as productive forces were never available in quantity and quality enough to completely overcome any hang-ups of capitalism, like a restricted market sector. Cuba had to carry out reforms too, and now has unemployed too. China has obviously chosen a much more pragmatic path, by sacrificing a lot more to give way to a more rapid, explosive development of productive forces and attract foreign investment. Whether or not you agree with this approach is a different thing - I believe that should we have a revolution in a highly developed country like Germany, UK or Canada, we should move to a fully planned economy and don't have any form of unemployment because all of our workers are fully skilled, our productivity is cranked up to maximum, and there are no peasants anymore, conditions that are not yet true for China - but yeah, their approach certainly is a but "ruthless" if you want, but it's a "work in progress" so to say.