Dealing with Parasites

[Zaphod]

Hi, I hope this is the right forum.



One thing I’m unclear about is how a leftist society would deal with people who exploit the system for their own gain. It’s something of a stereotype that socialism promotes stagnation, laziness and bureaucracy but does it have to? How would we deal with, for example:



benefit frauds
people on benefits who refuse to work
people who have children only to get a free house and lots of money from the state
people who earn more/the same amount of money by doing absolutely nothing as an honest hard working man or woman
the lazy and less competent person who earns the same as a motivated and highly competent person


I’ve worked in the UK civil service for over a year and it’s really hard to fire people who don’t do their jobs well enough because of all the regulations.


What is the solution to this problem?

[A New Era]

It's certainly is a problem, at least in this society. In Norway we have a large group of people who spend all their money by going to pubs and waste all of their money on beer. Others just like the welfare money so much that they don't want to work at all.

There is actually a guy here in this city who lived on welfare and saved enough money in order to start his own gym. After he was bought out by another guy he started his own supplement shop. :mellow:

[Dimentio]

Hi, I hope this is the right forum.



One thing I’m unclear about is how a leftist society would deal with people who exploit the system for their own gain. It’s something of a stereotype that socialism promotes stagnation, laziness and bureaucracy but does it have to? How would we deal with, for example:



benefit frauds
people on benefits who refuse to work
people who have children only to get a free house and lots of money from the state
people who earn more/the same amount of money by doing absolutely nothing as an honest hard working man or woman
the lazy and less competent person who earns the same as a motivated and highly competent person


I’ve worked in the UK civil service for over a year and it’s really hard to fire people who don’t do their jobs well enough because of all the regulations.


What is the solution to this problem?


I do not think that is the biggest problem in a post-capitalist society. Most of us would like to abolish money as an agent for exchange and instead use various different forms of distribution.

[brigadista]

dont believe the hype- you are buying into stereotypes here

[Tjis]

I'm more worried about the real parasites: the capitalists who own shares in companies and make an awful lot of money with that, instead of the few pennies the state gives to people on wellfare.
I once calculated it for the Netherlands. Assuming that all people on wellfare receive the maximum amount they could get (married, older than 23, etc), then still more than 5 times the amount of money spent on wellfare is earned by people owning dutch shares.
Now the Netherlans are a wellfare state. In other countries with less wellfare measures this ratio is worse, and on an international scale it's disastrous. Also this is purely about stock ownership and doesn't take things like bonuses for the top segment of the business management into account.

So who are the real parasites here?

[Zaphod]

I do not think that is the biggest problem in a post-capitalist society. Most of us would like to abolish money as an agent for exchange and instead use various different forms of distribution.

But I think the problem would remain that unscrupulous people would sponge off others. Instead of money from the state the lazy person would get food, shelter and stuff from the community. That seems like a bad incentive to do well, and that it would breed resentment from the workers.

[Zaphod]

I'm more worried about the real parasites: the capitalists who own shares in companies and make an awful lot of money with that, instead of the few pennies the state gives to people on wellfare.
I once calculated it for the Netherlands. Assuming that all people on wellfare receive the maximum amount they could get (married, older than 23, etc), then still more than 5 times the amount of money spent on wellfare is earned by people owning dutch shares.
Now the Netherlans are a wellfare state. In other countries with less wellfare measures this ratio is worse, and on an international scale it's disastrous. Also this is purely about stock ownership and doesn't take things like bonuses for the top segment of the business management into account.

So who are the real parasites here?

That may be true but I'm really talking about a socialist society with no capitalists.

I think it would be a good idea if a collectively owned factory or farm could vote highly skilled and hard working people higher wages. This wouldn't stop people who just wanted to coast thorugh life on the backs of others but I believe it would be fairer for the real producers.

[Tjis]

So the question is, why work when you don't have to? I'm not going to answer for a socialist state cause I think that is crap, instead I'll answer for communism.


Because you don't have to!
That's right. It's voluntary. Forcing people to do things always makes it much more unlikeable. But since it's voluntary, work becomes something you want to do because you like it, or feel that it is useful.
Because it means something!
Instead of working for a boss, or for a state, you're directly working to make society, and thereby your own life better. This is much more rewarding than a paycheck each month.
Because you have influence!
Instead of just being commanded around by someone else, you, together with the other workers, decide about everything that happens on your workplace. You're not just a flesh robot.
Because it's fun!
The quality of work would greatly improve in a communist society. Because you'd be in control of your workplace, you'd be able to make it an awesome place to work at. Also, no 8 hour workdays, 5 days a week. Everything gets boring if you do it too much, and all that work isn't really neccesary.

Even though work would be a fun happy place, there would still be people that don't want all that. But why does that matter? If everything society needs is being produced, why should we then refuse to let them have whatever they need?


I think it would be a good idea if a collectively owned factory or farm could vote highly skilled and hard working people higher wages. This wouldn't stop people who just wanted to coast thorugh life on the backs of others but I believe it would be fairer for the real producers.I think it's a bad idea to create this distinction. Not everyone has the same capabilities. Why should some be punished and some be rewarded because of this distinction? Since everything society needs is produced anyway, you shouldn't discriminate about who gets what. Everyone should get whatever they need.
Also, why should we even have money? We don't need that! Everyone should get what they need. Money doesn't have anything to do with it.

[Dimentio]

But I think the problem would remain that unscrupulous people would sponge off others. Instead of money from the state the lazy person would get food, shelter and stuff from the community. That seems like a bad incentive to do well, and that it would breed resentment from the workers.

Why would anyone sponge of from others when everyone have a guaranteed access to the means of production?

Here is an example of a post-capitalist distribution system.

http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=103

Moreover, I don't see anything wrong with minimising work.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

One thing I’m unclear about is how a leftist society would deal with people who exploit the system for their own gain. It’s something of a stereotype that socialism promotes stagnation, laziness and bureaucracy but does it have to? How would we deal with, for example:

That's usually because everyone confuses welfare capitalism with socialism.


benefit frauds
people on benefits who refuse to work
Benefits? There wouldn't be unemployment benefits if that's what you're thinking, because a socialist economy is able to provide employment for everyone. The only benefits that would exist would be for the old and disabled, so them refusing to work wouldn't make sense.

people who have children only to get a free house and lots of money from the state
people who earn more/the same amount of money by doing absolutely nothing as an honest hard working man or woman
the lazy and less competent person who earns the same as a motivated and highly competent person
These three problems aren't even applicable:


But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on.

[Das war einmal]

The TS did bring in a real important issue. In the soviet union there were lot of people stealing from the workplaces and sold this stuff on the black market. This caused shortages in the stores. Now comes the most funny part of this story: this was due to lack of control! Only the real fool would be totally honest and follow the rules that the soviet government made. Nearly everyone would make deals that actually weren't allowed by the rules but the government allowed it to happen.

We should make clear rules what is allowed, more democracy of the workers should allready cause a lot less people to parasite on the working class.

Finally I think its impossible to exterminate this alltogether, there are always people which will abuse the social system one way or another. But as allready said the real parasites are the capitalists

[ZeroNowhere]

As SoB pointed out, this argument relies on the misconception that socialism is welfare capitalism... It's not.
As for 'parasites', a system of labour credits (which are the only thing that differentiate the initial from the higher phase of socialism) would probably be necessary to prevent people from just grabbing shit without doing shit, but if people want to live a lifestyle in which they don't work, but only receive things satisfying their basic needs (food, appliances, electricity, etc, which would be free until a certain point), then that's fine too. Certainly, there will be no money under socialism, and nor will there be a state.


I think it would be a good idea if a collectively owned factory or farm could vote highly skilled and hard working people higher wages. This wouldn't stop people who just wanted to coast thorugh life on the backs of others but I believe it would be fairer for the real producers.
So apparently we could have a socialist society with no capitalists... But still capitalism. Well, alright then.

[cyu]

I'm not going to answer for a socialist state cause I think that is crap, instead I'll answer for communism.


Because you don't have to!
That's right. It's voluntary. Forcing people to do things always makes it much more unlikeable. But since it's voluntary, work becomes something you want to do because you like it, or feel that it is useful.
Because it means something!
Instead of working for a boss, or for a state, you're directly working to make society, and thereby your own life better. This is much more rewarding than a paycheck each month.
Because you have influence!
Instead of just being commanded around by someone else, you, together with the other workers, decide about everything that happens on your workplace. You're not just a flesh robot.
Because it's fun!
The quality of work would greatly improve in a communist society. Because you'd be in control of your workplace, you'd be able to make it an awesome place to work at. Also, no 8 hour workdays, 5 days a week. Everything gets boring if you do it too much, and all that work isn't really neccesary.




Well said. Since we're talking about incentives and motivations here, we're going to have to start talking about human psychology. There's a similar post to yours at http://knol.google.com/k/j-y/equal-pay-for-unequal-work/gcybcajus7dp/6#
Promote democracy in the workplace—employees are free to vote on a differentiated pay structure, if that’s what they want.
Now that workplace democracy is the norm, start promoting equal pay—this isn‘t to say you‘re forcing it on everyone—instead, it’s kind of like forming a new party in a new democracy, where this new party is promoting the concept of equal pay.
Replace product advertising with job advertising. Again, you‘re not forcing people to no longer advertise their products—you try to convince them instead. Point out the harm (psychological, environmental, etc) to society caused by product advertising versus the increased motivation as a result of job advertising. It’s like teaching gardeners to water their plants—you don‘t force them to water their plants, you‘re just telling them that watering their plants is a better idea than not watering their plants.
So how long will it be between steps 1 and 3? Months, years, decades? It’s hard to predict, but the point is to begin the path.

The main reason I endorse equal pay for unequal work is described here: http://knol.google.com/k/j-y/demand-is-not-measured-in-units-of/gcybcajus7dp/4

How would an economy and incentives work without pay differences?

Market Economics without Capitalism

The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people there is no contradiction with socialism. -Mikhail Gorbachev
Was Gorbachev contradicting the basic assumptions of socialism? I don't see a fundamental contradiction.

Consider this: Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary - regardless of whether you're a child, an engineer, retired, or whatever (yes, people in more difficult jobs may get more "respect" than other jobs, but that's just social conditioning and not related to their salaries). They then spend that money in a market to buy what they want / need. Market pricing still determines prices.

Here's the rub: instead of higher profits going to the producers, the extra money going into those industries just means there is more demand for those products and services. So the money is used to pay new producers in those industries, thus increasing supply - and everyone still has the same monthly salary.

As long as everyone has an equal salary, that is similar to economic democracy. Everyone has an equal amount of "votes" as to what to produce next. The concept of a salary is no longer a "reward" for work, but as just a method used so that everyone can help determine what goods and services are valuable.

The Demotivation of External Rewards

There are plenty of psychological studies that show "rewarding" work results in people liking the work less, and focusing on only the reward as their goal:

There was an experiment documented in Elliot Aronson's The Social Animal - some people were divided into two groups. In one group, the people were paid to do a certain activity. In the other group, the people were not paid to do the activity, but instead the organizers emphasized things like how much fun the activity was. At the end of the experiment, the people who were paid were much less likely to have found the activity enjoyable and would only do it again if they were paid again. The others were more likely to do the activity again of their own accord.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm also documents how giving someone a "reward" for work ultimately results in the person liking the job less and only going after the reward.

There is also this from http://bookoutlines.pbwiki.com/Predictably-Irrational

Ariely then ran another experiment. He read from "Leaves of Grass," and then asked his students the following:

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to pay Ariely $10 for a 10-minute poetry recitation

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to listen to a 10-minute poetry recitation if Ariely paid them $10

The students who were asked if they were willing to pay offered $1 for a short reading, $2 for a medium reading, and $3 for a long reading.

The students who were asked if they'd accept pay demanded $1.30 for a short reading, $2.70 for a medium reading, and $4.80 for a long reading.
Q: What is going to keep you getting out of bed at 6:30 AM other than the idea of bettering yourself and your family?

Depending on the job: the feeling of satisfaction of doing something important, the joy of doing something you've been brainwashed to love, bettering yourself & family by bettering society at the same time.

Q: One could imagine societies developing a social stigma against lazy workers, but it's even easier to imagine organizations without.

There isn't a stigma against not going on a rollercoaster. Well actually, you might get some ribbing from your peers that you're chicken. In any case, how do marketers get you to ride a rollercoaster? It's just one activity among millions of others - why is this one so desirable that you'd actually want to pay to do it, instead of having to be paid to do it? The marketer is basically emphasizing how much fun the activity itself will be - not what result or reward you'd get afterwards.

There is a danger in promoting the process too much though. Let's say you've basically been brainwashed to enjoy churning butter the traditional way. What if a new method comes along that is more efficient? Well, then those who are in charge of "marketing" in the butter industry will have to switch to promoting this new method instead, and leave the old method for you to do in your "leisure" (less important) time.

Q: Most of us ride a rollercoaster once in a while, but (most of us) would be bored if we did it all the time.

Yet people do things like read / argue on the internet day in and day out, or play a MMORPG day in and day out. You could argue that these activities are different in that they involve something different every day. Yet jobs could be tailored in the same way. Just apply the same product / marketing principles to the job itself. If you write software, you may be satisfied solving the same problems every day, simply because it makes you feel good to be the expert in your area. However, if that bores you, then you could branch out into other areas, or help out a peer who is swamped. If you work on an assembly line, you could easily move around to other parts of the assembly line if the learning curve isn't steep. You could even spend days outside of your "normal" job – maybe planting trees in a park or whatever the job advertisers are promoting that week.

There was a movie director that stated all great films are about either death or sex. Another director replied that he had to add money to his list. The first director responded that money is only used to avoid the first and get the second. I would add another thing to the use of money: to get pride – whether it's to buy status symbols, or simply to hold and be able to say you have a large amount of it. The thing with death and sex is that they are fairly absolute – death is death and sex is sex in every culture. Pride on the other hand is much more malleable. Different cultures (and subcultures) are proud of different things. Humans can take an active role in changing culture in any direction (which is basically what advertising and marketing is).

In today's system, you convince people to work by offering them money. You convince them to want money by advertising goods they can buy. Without product advertising, would people still want those goods (or money) as much? What then is the purpose of it all? To create a "desire" that wouldn't have existed otherwise, so you can fill that desire – it seems to me to just be a system of creating unnecessary work. Now before you make the argument that advertising isn't all that effective in getting people to buy what they don't want, consider this: why spend so much effort on advertising? It supports all of network television – million dollar salaries for the cast of Friends. Companies wouldn't spend so much if it didn't work. If advertising is just informative, then why spend all that money on slick ads? Why not just a simple, boring blurb about your product? The answer, of course, is that "boring" doesn't sell.

Replacing Product Advertising

So let's turn this around. Instead of trying to convince people to want things they don't want, instead convince them to want to do things that actually need doing.

Seems like a much more direct method to me and a much better use of the skills of our great advertisers.

What makes me think this kind of advertising would work?

As long as the advertising is controlled democratically, then the electorate already knows how important these jobs are. Thus, they already have the motivation to get these things done. The only real question is, are they able to make these activities sound enjoyable. To that end, they just need to employ the same psychological tools that product advertisers have been honing for years.

I would imagine different people would give their support to many different organizations. Each of these organizations would be supporting advertising for different activities. The more people supporting one organization, the more advertising you'd see for the jobs supported by that organization.