Full employment and productivity

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wasn't sure whether to put this here or in Economics, or indeed in Learning, but I felt that it was neither a numeric enough debate for the former, nor a child-like enough one for the latter.

In essence, I have been thinking about a problem that could possibly arise in a centrally planned economy. It revolves around the issue of job security. Now, i'm not sure if this has ever been a problem or even a slight on the former centrally planned economies in the USSR or GDR, or indeed in the PRC under Mao and Cuba currently.
What is one to do if, due to a combination of many factors - including a realisation of job security and thus laziness, disillusion with the Socialist system due to Capitalist propaganda, wanting to 'get rich quick' etc. - productivity, in more than a minority of cases, inexplicably falls, or does not rise as fast as it should. In other words, what methods can be taken to remedy a situation in which workers, realising that there jobs are safe in all but the worst cases of incompetence or misconduct, operate some sort of 'go-slow'. Now, i'm not talking about this being a planned act of defiance, but more a choice by individuals who cannot, for whatever, find the motivation to work at close to their maximum potential productivity.

I would think that this problem would mainly arise in a single Socialist (well, i'm not a believer that true Socialism can be achieved surrounded by Capitalists at the gates, so we will say 'Socialistic') nation/commonwealth, surrounded by Capitalist nations literally baying for it's demise, where there would be more access to anti-Socialist propaganda. It just struck me that this question is not often asked because there is some sort of anti-Socialist stigma attached to it - somebody asking this question with a lack of couth and indeed clarity of point may well come across as one who is apologising for the existence of structural & frictional types of unemployment. That is not the point here and not even for a second am I suggesting such. I am merely focusing on a problem that could possibly occur in a future planned economy due to a multiplicity of factors, believing that it is our duty to plan an appropriate response, should such a problem arise.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You could post this in my Economics thread on Minsky and full employment ("Public Employer of Last Resort for Consumer Services"):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/public-employer-last-t124658/index.html

[blake 3:17]

Employment should be considered a social right. What work is done should be determined both by both workers and consumers. Some people are more productive than others, trying to beancount it turns into its own inefficiency.

Mike Lebowitz has some really interesting stuff on Yugoslavia (which developed inefficiencies due to market relations). Cuba has been experimenting with some reforms which could enable productivity on a subsistence basis. Other reforms are for increased access to the world market.


Now, i'm not talking about this being a planned act of defiance, but more a choice by individuals who cannot, for whatever, find the motivation to work at close to their maximum potential productivity.


The line between the two isn't always so easy to define. With full employment, universal access to education and a planned economy, it'd be a whole lot easier for people to do work that they would enjoy more than other jobs.

And some of us will just be a bit lazy. Better than being a weapons producer...

[syndicat]

in the old Soviet Union the centrally planned economy generated inefficiencies. managers and workers in plants would collude to hide the real extent of their capacity to the central planners, so as to get an easier quota for their output, thus enabling them to fulfill the plan with less work. there was a tendency for managers to hoard labor, to ensure they could easily fulfill plans and look good to the higher ups. This tended to create an endemic labor shortage. Because jobs were thus virtually assured, it was harder for managers to exert the sort of discipline that is done in capitalism.

On the other hand, because workers had no control over their work, and had no say in the development of plans, they had no reason to identify with doing a good job or getting out the work. Central planning is inherently incompatible with workers' management because the central planners will want to have managers under their orders onsite to enforce their planning edicts on the workforce.

The alternative would be a system of workers self-management where workers create their own plans, but must adjust them to the demands of cunsumers (the users of their products). There is no reason that a group of workers should be alloted socially owned means of production to use if they aren't going to produce things people want. Thus there needs to be some way for them to be held accountable. The central planning way is top-down and coercive. An alternative would more communitarian or horizontal. The idea would be that pool of remuneration for work effort for the work collective attachs to evidence of their work effort, such as output of things they have agreed to produce. If there is less effort, they earn less remuneration. If the benefits they provide are less than the social costs incurred by their production, there would need to be good reasons provided as to why their collective should not be disbanded and the production resources alloted to others. Then the individuals would need to find some other work collectives to be a part of.

The point here is that an economy is not genuinely social if there is no accountability to the larger society. On the other hand, it is also not genuinely social if it is run to protect the power and privileges of a bureaucratic group who control the managerial and planning apparatus, as in the old Soviet Union.