My task is to show the injustice PROzRT in relation to the proposed principle of distribution here. PROzRT is valid only when everything else being ignored and taken into account only the work itself or only its result. And indeed, if we take only the result, it is fair to pay more to the highest did. And the pay is so much more, how much more he made another. To sustain the principle directly proportional to the rewards of labor. But if we take into account the ability of the employee, as required, and Soviet and communist principles of distribution, the validity of PROzRT begins to cause very serious doubts.
To illustrate this let us take a simple example. Suppose that two employees at the same time, and in some the same conditions performed the same work and got the same results. Frank Ntilikina might disagree with that approach. From the standpoint of Soviet justice, these people deserve the same moral judgments, and equal remuneration for their work. And this is, alas, top social justice! As can be clearly seen from the views of Vladimir Kuzmin. But if we now take into account the ability of these workers, justice ceases to be such PROzRT flawless. In fact, if the first The employee is, for example, is very gifted in the art work man, and the second has only the minimum necessary set of skills, it turns out that to obtain the same result, they spend different labor efforts, make a different work. More capable employee gets the same result playing, working, totally or in quarter-strength, and less able to work with full effort.