incentive, and hard/unpleasant jobs in socialism.

[BIG BROTHER]

Okay, so I was promoting Socialism yesterday, and selling newspapers when this whom, I kinda know came up to me.

He is one of those typical liberals and anyways asked me about who would do the dirty or unpleasant jobs in a socialist society, etc.

I told him about jobs rotation, and automatizing(i spelled it wrong i know). And how automatizing in capitalism just means people loose their jobs while in a socialist society means more free time for everyone.

Then he asked me about incentives, and he was telling me like "oh if everybody gets paid the same, then why for example should I be a nurse and not just a secretary"

I explained to him first of all that socialism doesn't mean everybody will get paid the same, then I try to explain him how there will be moral incentives rather than material ones, and how in Spain and Russia(before it degenerated) society was run even more effective but he left quickly so I couldn't say much more.

Anyways I felt I did a crappy job, at explaining and answering his questions. Have any of you guys been in similar situations? And also what arguments or explanations would you recommend?

[Black Sheep]

Firstly, what is your ideology?

Secondly,you did a pretty good job. :)

"oh if everybody gets paid the same, then why for example should I be a nurse and not just a secretary" You mention the factors of social need for secretaries and nurses,and link it to the socialist morality of common good (though it would spawn a chaotic conversation).
And in developed socialism, personal preference would do the trick too.Many people want to be doctors,and many people want to be builders (like Bob).
When getting the food to feed the family is out of the way and when a good education until the decision about what job you will trained and to do is there, the decision becomes much clearer.


I explained to him first of all that socialism doesn't mean everybody will get paid the sameBut be sure to mention it as a necessity,because equal pay (or equal rewards in general from the society) is the goal.And add that labor value can never be estimated objectively, so unequal pays would be unfair,subjective and would breed disputes and unhealthy competition between the workers.


there will be moral incentives rather than material ones,But material ones too, a socialist economic system is materially more efficient to all, so there's your material incentive too.Just ask him, 'do you want to reap the fruits of your labor in a dishonest and exploitive way, or do you want to invest in a long term stability, prosperity,and ull satisfaction of your needs and everyone else's? '
Also analyse fully what the incentive is in the capitalist world.It is not 'elevating yourself higher' and such bullshit.Try to explain its nature, the survival of the fittest (animal kingdom analogy goes here), the equation that with every widening of your economic gap while you ascend means the lowering of the living standards of other people.And this is a reality,not theoretical statistics.Add stuff about the uncertainty of the capitalists' prosperity (economic crisis goes here),about the ruthless competition between the cappies themselves,and about their class concioussnes in times of high proletarian class awareness.

hope this helped.

[BIG BROTHER]

Ideology, Trotskyst....and thanks for the advice, I may have mentioned the whole social factor that you mentioned, but he kinda got me off guard, and didn't give me much time to explain.

[Charles Xavier]

Whats the mistaken idea is that everyone in socialism gets paid the same, which is incorrect, you get paid according to your ability. A doctor will make more than a beach attendant.

Think of Capitalism without the unemployment and the private ownership, or imperialism, where society's goal is to elevate the social conditions of everyone by working together. You don't have the great wealth inequalities but you don't have someone who doesn't apply themselves making the same as someone who took the time to go through school in a field that people need, like a doctor or an engineer. Where an iron worker in Toronto makes the same wage as an Iron worker in St. John's Newfoundland, where all workers have universal rights not just regional.

The Soviet Union used to give bonuses for mines and factories that exceeded quotas. And whatnot. There was incentive to work hard.

And for jobs no one likes, well which jobs exactly?

[Killfacer]

Whats the mistaken idea is that everyone in socialism gets paid the same, which is incorrect, you get paid according to your ability. A doctor will make more than a beach attendant.

Think of Capitalism without the unemployment and the private ownership, or imperialism, where society's goal is to elevate the social conditions of everyone by working together. You don't have the great wealth inequalities but you don't have someone who doesn't apply themselves making the same as someone who took the time to go through school in a field that people need, like a doctor or an engineer. Where an iron worker in Toronto makes the same wage as an Iron worker in St. John's Newfoundland, where all workers have universal rights not just regional.

The Soviet Union used to give bonuses for mines and factories that exceeded quotas. And whatnot. There was incentive to work hard.

And for jobs no one likes, well which jobs exactly?

So people who are born with less ability than another person will always get less than someone with more ability? This hardly seems like the egalitarian society soclialism should be.

[Potemkin]

I like your response, bulk. I also think Killfacer brings up a good point. There seems to be confusion over being "paid," as well.

GeorgiDimitrovII, your post doesn't seem to reflect "from each according to ability, to each according to needs." From an anarchist-communist perspective, we want to ideally move away from compensation altogether, with everyone contributing what they can to society, and in turn each receiving what they need to survive.

Also, I think it's important to point out that you don't need competition to be productive. Cooperation, solidarity, and mutual aid work even better. The anarchist-communist recognizes that, regardless of ability to produce, handicap, or job, everyone has something unique and beneficial to contribute to society. As bulk and Killfacer point out, it would be unfair to reward contributing members differently than what we all deserve -- the means to live.

[Charles Xavier]

We are talking about socialism, communism will be a different question all together. The soviet union faced immense problems with lack of incentive to work harder. So did Cuba. I do not plan on working extra hours at my work just because its a socialist state, or speeding up. Maybe you can tell me who is, maybe these fictional people who work harder because its fun. I work because I have to feed my family.

[Potemkin]

I agree, Georgi, and I think such a socialism would be a hard sell to people that are just trying to feed their family. It could be argued that the stagnation and possible lack of motivation are a problem with transitional or socialist systems.

This is not my realm of expertise. From an anarchist-communist perspective, a proletariat able to overthrow capitalism are politically conscious and unified as a class enough to begin the work of building communism (classless, stateless society) immediately. This direct control over their lives would give them a sense of ownership of the new world they were creating, and the freedom to have a say in the issues in which they are affected is a strong incentive to participate, as well as a great morale boost.

[communick]

I love getting the "incentive" question from people. There are several ways to approach it.

In a capitalist system, there is no incentive to go to a job that doesn't pay enough to survive on, leave you in debt, is alienating, etc.

In spite of this, millions and maybe billions of people still wake up every day to go to a job that gets them deeper in the hole.

There really is no incentive for many people to work under capitalism.

or

Let's look a Cuba, definitely not a "workers' paradise", but their medical system is amazing. The only thing Cuba really has a surplus of is doctors. The reason for this is that people in Cuba become doctors out of a desire to help people while in capitalist countries many people become doctors simply because it is a lucrative career.

In Cuba there are no financial barriers to entering medical school. One simply has to have the smarts. In the US one has to be smart and rich or extremely lucky.

and

Along with socialism is the idea that workers will have a democratic say in how their labor is used. Participating in a democratically planned economy is an incentive in that workers can see their labor as a part of society and themselves. This is the opposite of the alienation we now face at work where we see our lives beginning when we punch out.

personally,

I work in what can be a particularly nasty job- power plant maintenance/repair, mostly in coal-burning power plants. I like the following about my job - the works is interesting, it is physically challenging and keeps me in very good shape, it pays well and I can see the social necessity of my job. If boilermakers stopped working, so would everything that runs on electricity.

On the other hand, the work is dangerous. I'm exposed to all sorts of nasty shit and still have no say in how my labor gets used. Instead of writing this post right now I could be retro-fitting old power plants to make them cleaner or building new ones that will pollute less. Unfortunately, this does not fit into short term profit schemes and instead I am currently laid off.

Even under capitalism there are some ways to add incentives to dirty jobs. Most people in my union get to retire at 55 due to the years of abuse.

...kinda rambling but hopefully helpful.

[Pogue]

This is probably the most over used argument against socialism in the world. People misunderstand that we're asusming we're in a society where such jobs, or the need for wages inequality, have been eradicated, and so there is no need to pay differently. Also mention how these things are easily shared out, seeing as if everyone does a little bit of work you'll only have to sya, help clean the streets once a year or something, otherwise enjoying a fruitful and pleasant life.

[robbo203]

Okay, so I was promoting Socialism yesterday, and selling newspapers when this whom, I kinda know came up to me.

He is one of those typical liberals and anyways asked me about who would do the dirty or unpleasant jobs in a socialist society, etc.?


In a moneyless wageless society based on free access to goods and services and voluntary labour, MOST of the work we do today inside a capitalist economy will be unnecessary - from banks to pay departments, from munition workers to cash till operators.

Estimates of the extent of structural waste in capitalism vary but I would guess conservatively that somewhere in the region of 50-60% of all jobs in the formal capitalist sector of any industrialised nation would disappear completely in socialism(communism)

What does that mean? It means that you effectively double the available manpower and resources for socially useful production. This is not to mention all the other productive advantages that a moneyless socialist economy has over all forms of capitalism.

Will people lack the incentive to work in socialism? With more people to share the burden work will be far less onerous anyway. Plus, with free acccess to goods and services the only way in which people will be able to attract the esteem of their fellows is through their contribution to society - not what they take out of it in the form of conspicuous consumption.

And finally dont forget that today even despite capitalism , there are huge numbers of people involved in voluntary work of all sorts. Lifeboatmen risk their lives without any kind of financial reward in order to save people . Indeed, the non market sector or grey economy (household economy, voluntary work, mutual aid projects and so on )- in terms of labour hours worked - is larger than both the formal capitalist economy and the black economy put together. Communism lives and breathes right under our very noses.

Now that is something to think about!

[ckaihatsu]

Then he asked me about incentives, and he was telling me like "oh if everybody gets paid the same, then why for example should I be a nurse and not just a secretary"


A few of us went into this direction in depth over the past few months -- here's an excerpt, and the thread contains the larger discussion.



[G]iven the years of schooling and preparation needed to produce a qualified surgeon, those labor hours -- or labor minutes -- would have a *much* higher multiplier on them than for that of a carpenter (no offense).

So maybe our table would look something like this:


OCCUPATION_______%_OF_POPULATION_______MULTIPLIER_ _____LABOR_HOURS______LABOR_CREDITS

surgeon________________2%_(guessing)__________300X ________0.25_per_minor_surgery____75_credit-hours
carpenter_______________5%_(guessing)__________1X_ (sorry)____75_per_month,_part-time____75_credit-hours


I'd like to emphasize, as I noted before, that in a planned economy, this labor could *not* be done on a strictly self-motivated basis, because if there's no actual *demand* for it in the economy then it's a hobby.



I explained to him first of all that socialism doesn't mean everybody will get paid the same, then I try to explain him how there will be moral incentives rather than material ones


I personally have issues with this approach since I think the whole category of "morality" is extremely problematic.

There should be a materialist orientation to *any* planned / communist economy, mostly because it would still be about the flow of goods and services, the utilization of assets and resources, and people's time and effort, for labor.

A liberated workforce would have to deal *not* with the question of continuing the present configuration of jobs and production, but with the questions of "What do we want produced?" and "What jobs are worth doing towards this end?" This approach would yield the answers to what would be considered "labor" at all, and how it should be compensated, in the absence of coercion, oppression, and exploitation.

One quick example here that I like to use: How would you quantify what we do here on this board? Is it *useful*? Are we being *political*, and / or *working*, or is it more like an informal get-together to just hang out and shoot the shit?

Maybe remind the person you're talking to about how clubs work -- ask if they've ever been in a small club or group of some kind that had shared responsibilities, and maybe a rotating schedule for performing those duties in common. *That* would be a fairly good approximation of what a communist society would be like, globally, for *everything*.

Here are a couple of recent creations -- please feel free to have a look and comment:


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


Syndicalism - Socialism - Communism Transition Diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bgqgjw


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[JimmyJazz]

I haven't read all the replies, but the objection makes no sense. The hardest, dirtiest, most physical types of labor tend to be the most undervalued under capitalism. They stand to gain the most.

And this is reflected in real life class struggle: electricians and mechanics form far more militant unions than electrical engineers and mechanical engineers.

[Charles Xavier]

I haven't read all the replies, but the objection makes no sense. The hardest, dirtiest, most physical types of labor tend to be the most undervalued under capitalism. They stand to gain the most.

And this is reflected in real life class struggle: electricians and mechanics form far more militant unions than electrical engineers and mechanical engineers.


Industrial Workers, Transit workers and Teachers form the most militant unions.

Craft unions are far less militant.

[RebelDog]

Then he asked me about incentives, and he was telling me like "oh if everybody gets paid the same, then why for example should I be a nurse and not just a secretary"The solution stares us in the face. The nurse is the secretary and the secretary is the nurse. If we have self-managed workplaces we have to 'balanced job complexes' (to borrow from Michael Albert) and share out all the empowering tasks and the less desirable ones, although this example is lacking as many nurses are on wages comparable with secretaries now but people still choose nursing. If we are serious about an end to hierarchy, exploitation and class then we should embrace an economic system that permits involvement by its workforce in the all the tasks associated with the self-managed unit and their subsequent education, training and empowerment. Why can't we have this? nothing in human nature precludes it. Otherwise we have a return to class and greater reward for those who can monopolise empowering tasks like we see happening now.

[ckaihatsu]

The solution stares us in the face. The nurse is the secretary and the secretary is the nurse. If we have self-managed workplaces we have to 'balanced job complexes' (to borrow from Michael Albert) and share out all the empowering tasks and the less desirable ones, although this example is lacking as many nurses are on wages comparable with secretaries now but people still choose nursing. If we are serious about an end to hierarchy, exploitation and class then we should embrace an economic system that permits involvement by its workforce in the all the tasks associated with the self-managed unit and their subsequent education, training and empowerment. Why can't we have this? nothing in human nature precludes it. Otherwise we have a return to class and greater reward for those who can monopolise empowering tasks like we see happening now.


This is an excellent point, especially as regards the makeup of the destination configuration of a communist society. It reminds me of primitive communism, with its more-blended roles (though there *was* a gender division).

Considering that we now all have access to "expert systems" like Wikipedia, the availability of know-how is no longer an issue. Perhaps a contemporary communism might feature a return to tribe-like bands that roam and reconfigure at will, with certain "event nodes" that become features on the landscape of space and time.

A communist configuration would liberate *everyone* beyond the current strictures of private property and make all "event nodes" as real, almost equally available, events for anyone around them to participate in. Perhaps there would be an "event horizon" beyond which one would definitively be qualified to participate actively in the event -- if it was the construction of a building, the most able would be the most active, with others playing supporting roles and learning from being near the experience.

Those closest on the periphery might be the most likely next participants, while those further away might be studying about the know-how of it all on a laptop.

Certainly there'd be much less formalism and need for conscious record-keeping -- more of *all* of the gruntwork would be computerized and automated, since there would still be material quantities to keep track of, regardless.

[allix]

Has anyone thought about unemployment benefits and how some people take advantage of them to not work? Some people even claim from different councils in the same country or get a council home and rent it.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well, I was just checking out all of your responses...one of the best points I've heard so far is that people DO low paid, harsh jobs on capitalism where they have no say and aren't compensated.

Also the fact that there is so much volunteer work around.

[Diagoras]

Has anyone thought about unemployment benefits and how some people take advantage of them to not work? Some people even claim from different councils in the same country or get a council home and rent it.

I'm not sure what your second sentence was asking/saying, but regarding unemployment, there are a few general responses to it under a socialist system. Given that production would be oriented toward use/need as opposed to profit, jobs can actually be planned for and guaranteed. So, excluding cases of extreme injury/disability, the excuse of inability to "find" some way to contribute to society would cease to exist. One possibility in addressing those who do not wish to do any work yet still desire to consume social resources is to apply various social pressures and offer therapeutic support (treating this mindset like a psychological disorder akin to depression). Another option, if the leeching is truly egregious, would be expulsion from the community, or cutting off from social resources (and/or left to the family).

[JimmyJazz]

*misses the point*

..

[allix]

I'm not sure what your second sentence was asking/saying, but regarding unemployment, there are a few general responses to it under a socialist system. Given that production would be oriented toward use/need as opposed to profit, jobs can actually be planned for and guaranteed. So, excluding cases of extreme injury/disability, the excuse of inability to "find" some way to contribute to society would cease to exist. One possibility in addressing those who do not wish to do any work yet still desire to consume social resources is to apply various social pressures and offer therapeutic support (treating this mindset like a psychological disorder akin to depression). Another option, if the leeching is truly egregious, would be expulsion from the community, or cutting off from social resources (and/or left to the family).

My second sentence is an example in england of people who don't work and get benefits twice by applying in different parts of the country or even both getting a home provided by the government but not living in it but charging people to.

Your last sentence is what happens in todays society, there is only so much time government's give to people to find work and if they have not found anything and are able to they will cut they benefits.
This is the part of society that can be reactionary and will want to ruin it. of course making people work is not a humane either, i guess under socialism people in all jobs will see the advantage of working unlike todays society where the lowest paid job is almost the same amount of money as recieving social benefits.