How Is Hard Work Encouraged in an Anarchist/Socialist Society?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

If from each according to his ability to each according to his needs is followed and everyone gets the same shit regardless of how much they contribute, are hard workers not rewarded at all? Or is there some way to provide an incentive for people to work hard?

[Deroulede]

"Or is there some way to provide an incentive for people to work hard?"


If they work at gunpoint............

[bcbm]

Why should people have to work hard?

[NecroCommie]

How does capitalism explain the drastic loss of capable workforce that we call unemployment?

On a more serious note, the incentive will be exactly the same as in capitalist society. In capitalism workers are only working because if they don't, they would die out of starvation. Similarly in socialism and communism "those who do not work, don't eat either" You could ofcourse claim that climbing the imaginary "social ladder" would be motivating, but I will quarantee that when inquired about their motives to work, a vast majority of workers never mention getting rich. They have enough to think on their mere survival.

Truth is, even in the western states there is a huge population of people who are not motivated by money at all. People choose careers that barely pay, some volunteer for work out of sense of obligation, and others are fine with humble jobs. The idea that money would be an important incentive is fallacious.


If they work at gunpoint............
Says a man without an argument.

Besides, the idea that productive society is somehow better society is an error in itself. Good society is a society in which people are taken care of. That is called communism.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I don't think people should HAVE to work hard, but if they do I think they should be rewarded.

[robbo203]

If from each according to his ability to each according to his needs is followed and everyone gets the same shit regardless of how much they contribute, are hard workers not rewarded at all? Or is there some way to provide an incentive for people to work hard?

I think the way you have framed your question is slightly misleading. In strict communism there is no remuneration or "reward" for your work. Labour power is no longer a commodity to be bought and sold at a given exchange rate. On the contrary it is expressed in a purely voluntary form as free labour.

As Marx pointed out the mode of distribution of the products of society is determined by the basic relations of production. Common ownership of the means of production means literally everyone owns the means of production and the question of individuals selling or exchanging their labour power for some material "reward" simply does not arise. In fact, were it to arise this would clearly point to the existence of sectional or class ownership of the means of production , not common ownership. This is why the communist manifesto talked of the "communistic abolition of buying and selling". Buying and selling - whether of labour power or any other commodity - implies sectional or private ownership of the means of production.

What your question is really about is motivation. Do people require the "stick" of threatened starvation and the "carrot" of material advancement in order to contribute usefully to society. I say no. Even under capitalism there is a huge amount of work that is carried on on an entirely voluntary basis. In communism the whole nature of work will be transformed from an onerous burden to a creative need when we are in control of ourselves and not under the dictate of an employer. A huge amount of work to do with the maintenance of capitalism will simply disappear anyway - from banking to taxcollecting and a thousand and one other jobs, thus releasing an enormous amount of resources and labour for socially useful production. This means there will probably be a lot less work to do on a per capita basis...

If there is any "reward" that one might get from working in a communist society - apart from the intrinsic satisfaction of expresssing ourselves creatively - it will lie in the esteem and respect that it bestows on individuals in the eyes of their fellows. In communism there is no way in which one can gain status through one's consumption of goods since these would be freely available to everyone to take according to their self determined needs. It follows then that the only way in which one could gain such esteem is through one's contribution to society. This will be a form of "reward" but an intangible reward so to speak and not what you have in mind.

[yuon]

Why should people have to work hard?

Quite. Real socialism should be about not having to work, at all if they want. The idea of "from each according to their ability" should require a voluntary worker, and require a desire to work. Those who don't wish to work, shouldn't have to.

Of course, I'm expecting an advanced socialist society, with machines and all that.

[kharacter]

To encourage hard work, you must change the people's perspective so that their incentive is, instead of the betterment of their current status (financial or otherwise), the betterment of their community.

By convincing people of the dignity there is in being a part of something bigger than themselves, you continue to strive towards progression. In this sense, the people who work the hard jobs are the ones most committed to helping society. In this advanced world, people would realize there is much more worth in large-scale human advancement than false honour gained by disillusioning those below you.

[Muzk]

You guys don't know how this works

There is no boss, no state telling you to do something
It is you!

You are in a factory. You are 50 people. Someone else needs 500 jackets. You make 500, all together, till there's no more work left - if you got some boss telling you to make it, we're in a class society again.

There's no need to make profit. Right now, you work your 8 hours or whatever and you're done with it, in communism you do what is needed. There's no boss managing your factory - it is you and your fellow comrades!

The machine does not control you - it is you who controls the machine!

robbo203 pretty much covered it all

[bcbm]

I don't think people should HAVE to work hard, but if they do I think they should be rewarded.

Why should people be rewarded for continuing the modern work ethic that basically praises "hard work" and accumulation at the expense of all else?


You are in a factory. You are 50 people. Someone else needs 500 jackets. You make 500, all together, till there's no more work left - if you got some boss telling you to make it, we're in a class society again.

There's no need to make profit. Right now, you work your 8 hours or whatever and you're done with it, in communism you do what is needed. There's no boss managing your factory - it is you and your fellow comrades!

So we'll work longer hours for happy fluffy feelings in a shitty sewing factory because some weiner needs 500 jackets? Sounds fucking awful.

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I think that if someone contributes more to society through hard work, they should be rewarded.

[FreeFocus]

Psychological research has revealed to us that people work best and hardest when intrinsically motivated - that is, motivated by their own willpower to do something, usually for their own enjoyment or fulfillment. Otherwise, labor is "just a job," a way to put food on the table in a dehumanizing, capitalist society.

What type of "reward" would you like to see, SIGF? I think other workers and the community would appreciate the person's contribution, if they were going above and beyond in their labor.

[bcbm]

I think that if someone contributes more to society through hard work, they should be rewarded.

What does that even mean though? I've worked really hard doing absolute bullshit for hours to get paid and I think I would've been contributing a lot more to society by hanging out with my family or something, and I don't need a special reward to want to do that.

[robbo203]

So we'll work longer hours for happy fluffy feelings in a shitty sewing factory because some weiner needs 500 jackets? Sounds fucking awful.

This is a kind of absurd point to make in the context of this thread which is after all about a socialist/anarchist society. Such a society would be based on free volunteer labour. Labour power would cease to function as a commodity. So no one can compel you to work in a shitty sewing factory churning out jackets. The fact that you do presupposes your willingness to do it which can be motivated by all sorts of reasons - comradeship, the sense of moral responsibility, the intrinsic pleasure of creative expression and so forth. Remember also, we are all different - what might not appeal to you might very well appeal to someone else. Besides, there is no reason why working in a sewing factory has to be a shitty experience. Once the means of production belong to everyone there is no reason why collectively we cannot transform the work environment into something pleasant.


Ultimately, there is the reductio as absurdum argument one can fall back on. If people dont want to work in a sewing factory, then no jackets will be produced. Would this be acceptable? If yes, then there is no problem. If no, then how else do you think people imagine jackets would be made available except by themselves getting down to the business of producing them?

There will be no nanny state in a socialist society. A socialist or anarchist society presupposes that the people who brought it into being (and would not want to see it collapse) understand fully the implications of operating such a society and recognise that our mutual interdependence imposes a moral obligation on all of us to contribute according to our abilities

[Deroulede]

.Such a society would be based on free volunteer labour


My guess is that 90% of the people would choose instead to spend their days watching television or wacking-off 7 times a day. I can't see such an economy based on free volunteer labor or love of work lasting very long without some greater TANGIBLE motivation that you can offer. If not money, than offer some sort of sexual gratification?

And if you made every workplace into a "pleasant experience," that might make the cost of running the operation too expensive for it to be profitable........... Just a thought.

And some necessary occupations you might never be able to make pleasant, such as hauling trash or refuse. So good luck finding a volunteer to do that, unless you offer him a substantial boon to perform the task, in which case you are already back on the rainbow road to capitalism. So the question is, how do you provide the real necessary motivation to keep up a functional socialist economy, finding someone to do the dirty work?

Seeing as I am interested in becoming a socialist, I need to see something concrete that would convince me that such an economy would not collapse like a house of cards once the novelty wore off, people stopped caring, and lost their enthusiasm.



The fact that you do presupposes your willingness to do it which can be motivated by all sorts of reasons - comradeship, the sense of moral responsibility,


Best of luck bringing out that idealism and selflessness from the masses. These are the same NASCAR, Wonder-bread people whom belong to what we clean-cuts call "the other half." Remember you have to inspire people with an average IQ of 95, not 140.


There is no boss, no state telling you to do something
It is you!

And most people would tell themselves to go right home and sleep.



To encourage hard work, you must change the people's perspective so that their incentive is, instead of the betterment of their current status (financial or otherwise), the betterment of their community.


Best of luck with that............ Let me know how it goes. 98% of people have the sole objective of bettering their personal or familial status. You might have to find some other selling point.



Quite. Real socialism should be about not having to work, at all if they want.


And how many comerades will take this road. I bet the answer is "most of them." The ones who are working might get upset fairly quickly at propping up such a sedentary mass and take out their frustration violently.

I think a large bloc of people would still continue to engage in some sort of productive activity or follow "creative pursuits," but I think that the vast majority would become sedentary under the structure described above. So what can you offer to the people with middling IQ's, people who are tough to motivate, people without artistic talent, etc..........

[ZeroNowhere]

Some links on the subject:
Fifteen Questions About Socialism (http://www.slp.org/pdf/de_leon/ddlother/fif_ques.pdf) (De Leon)
Criteria for Individual Incomes in a Socialist Economy (http://deleonism.org/v1.htm) (this guy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=10217))
Arguments for free access and labour credits (http://deleonism.org/v2.htm)

Also, for clarification, most LTV advocates would advocate basic necessities (food, water, some appliances, electricity, etc) to be available to some extent, whereas labour credits would be used for other goods, as well as basic necessities over a certain point (eg. the electricity required to run a swimming pool). So if somebody wants to sit around and be a hermit while still having sufficient food, they can do so. And if one wants to taste the life that pleases you, and raise a storm for all the world to see ('cause what's the point in living, unless you're living wild?), that's fine too.

And the whole point of 'from each... to each...' in Marx is that it's an unequal right: everybody does not 'get the same shit', rather, they can consume as befits their own situation. Though Marx is clear (he capitalizes 'only then') that this could only take place, "after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly".


In this sense, the people who work the hard jobs are the ones most committed to helping society.Society is not as good an author as Dunsany was.

[puke on cops]

Personally, I would rather lick the sewers clean with my tongue for about 4 or 5 hours or wipe up old ladies poo, spend an hour arguing in the community concil why the towns traditional annual firework display must not take prevellence over the rise in doddery old revolutionary veterans who have moved in and don't want to hear explosions again, or study wound suturing and get to enjoy free communism than a single 8 hour shift at ASDA.

[DDK]

Karl Marx lies it out clearly in the Communist Manifesto. "Equal liability of all to labour..."

[Dimentio]

If from each according to his ability to each according to his needs is followed and everyone gets the same shit regardless of how much they contribute, are hard workers not rewarded at all? Or is there some way to provide an incentive for people to work hard?

Why should hard work be encouraged? I spent my entire childhood carpenting, carrying firewood, cutting grass and timber. It is not about working more, it should be about getting more outcome for less input.

[Outinleftfield]

People would do the work they want. Its not like we all secretly would love to just sit on the couch all day doing nothing. And if people do the work they want they'll be more motivated. When people work because they have to they only do as good a job as they have to.

If there werent enough people who wanted to do a job theyd just put together a lottery to randomly pick people. No violence is needed to enforce this. Ostracism would work. Tribes do this kind of thing all the time and it works. Even then they'd be more motivated because they want to show the community a good job.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why is it that no one asks - who's going to keep Bill Gates in line? He has all the money he could ever spend, who's making sure he works hard and isn't slacking off by the coffee machine talking about the new Star Trek movie with his co-workers?


Why should hard work be encouraged? I spent my entire childhood carpenting, carrying firewood, cutting grass and timber. It is not about working more, it should be about getting more outcome for less input.

Yes. Just as capitalists strive to make work more "efficient" i.e. extracting more surplus labor for less expense, workers will strive to get rid of as much shit-work as possible so that eventually individuals in society can just do work that pleases or interests them.

In the immediate aftermath of the revolution we could easily get rid of many occupations that do nothing for production or service but exist only for the needs of profit making. Corporate lawyers, ad executives, CEOs, motivational speakers, time-management experts, cops, people who go to stores to promote brand X toothpaste over brand Y, and so on will be jobs that are no longer needed. Other jobs like janitors will probably be eliminated - instead of having 1 person pick up trash all the time, people at a workplace could be expected to work 1 day a month or ever other month cleaning the garbage bins and sweeping the floor. And, yes, automation will also play a big part in increasing productivity and wealth while decreasing labor hours in general.

[New Tet]

I get tired just thinking about hard work.

[Lymos]

Basically in a nutshell,

Under an anarcho-capitalistic state, you pretty much have the same model as a minarchy/small government/libertarian/statist state. That is, fewer luxury provided by welfare. More chances of rewarding hard work due to the free market. Most importantly, less artificial monopolies especially on education.

Anarcho-capitalism having one major advantage though in that the small government is never going to lead to a big government unless there was a major shift in politics compared to the other governments in which the followers rarely address the fact of how exactly will they prevent the government from constantly growing bigger and how exactly are they going to convince people under a big government to become smaller and rid of all the welfare they have enjoyed?

Although anarcho-capitalism would also have the latter problem, the problem by itself is something applicable to all anarchy movements as are the solutions.

Under a socialist state, hard work is set up through narcissistic altruism. That is the followers should be narcissistic enough to follow, uphold and maintain socialism (especially in an anarchist version) and they should be altruistic enough to help their community.

This stems from the mistaken idea that all people are good people or has good in them but hey, no political ideology is perfect.

Practically though, this would require the original community to set up altruism breeding houses like re-prioritizing and re-inventing hard work in school teachings and thus producing a monastery effect in such a way that they train people to become altruistic so that the only necessary ingredient is for those altruistic people to be narcissistic enough so that they do great volunteer work for the community. Couple this with people enjoying lots of luxury from welfare and in a long enough immersion, it would infect the area so much that you can rise up to the ideals of natural communism. (That is communism not enforced but reached through a growth provided by socialism.)

Sure you might argue that this borders on brain washing but it borders on altruistic brain washing less associated with fascism and more associated with religion and the "opium of the masses" and even today, a lot of people have no problem with that. (although obviously alot of people also do)

Also, most modern implementations of capitalism also do not reward hard work and do not follow the original ideological intentions of capitalism and the world has only slowly decayed into hell as opposed into sinking rapidly into it.

The reality is, that most casual people today are motivated by luxury. Money + salary does not equal hard work. Hard work equals becoming an entrepreneur and providing services and innovations in a competitive environment that salary is merely a form of paying people underneath you.

If you can revision people's way of thinking to something before currency was invented but convinced them enough that mass acceptance of luxury today is the end all, be all...you can near perfectly make socialism work except for invading armies and innovation building. (which majority living in a bubble won't care for much or else they will leave the area and serve underneath a non-socialist country or find one where socialism is balanced and moderated by capitalism and other mixtures that satisfy them. Since socialist countries are going to mostly make free airlines between the area anyways, it's basically like living in a tech available Amish society (minus the "you can never return" portion) when it does get implemented and most people raised in this modern consumerist society would hardly mind that.

[JJM 777]

Some works are tougher than some others, no matter who is doing the work and with what attitude. For example, most people would rather do pleasant office work indoor in daytime than a night shift in fire brigade. Office work also ends exactly when the working time ends, but if your job is carrying heavy bags at a construction site, your muscles will complain about it the rest of the evening, in a way we could say that the work ends only when your muscles feel normal and relaxed again.

It would be necessary, or at least very nice, to compensate the difference in toughness of work by adjusting the working time, for example. Harder work = shorter work shift. If someone doesn't do his work properly, he should get fired with a mark in his work record, "didn't show adequate diligence in work X", so next time when he applies for work, he will be given some other kind of work, or if all his working is nothing but kidding, then he simply won't receive any credit for having done any work at all.