The "problem" of incentive/motivation in a communist worker state

[Adi Shankara]

I hear this alot from anti-Marxists, and except for in anarchist societies, I can't really think of a completely proper response so I want your help.

Most capitalists will say some shit like "oh, in Marxism, whats the motivation for a factory worker to produce a good product at a car factory if he gets paid as much as the guy who is on disability, or the guy who is a doctor? what motivates them to do their best?

I can think of the overwhelming altruism provided by volunteer work, and there are millions of volunteers every year who work for non-profit because they want to live in a positive society...I also think that communism could instill penalties for those who are obviously slacking but that sounds like slave labor to a degree at that point.

Or, maybe the profit motive would be obsolete because everything one needs would be provided by the state?

can someone help me out here? :confused: Marx doesn't really touch on the issue as extensively as he should've...

EDIT: another argument I could think of was that capitalism has a problem of incentive too, such as at places where thousands of Americans work, like wal-mart etc. where no matter how hard they work in an hour, they still get paid only 8.50 an hour and nothing more, no matter what--that, and it's stupid to assume that everyone is entitled to a promotion when there are only so many spots open for a job.

[Invincible Summer]

Well, to put it simply: there is no wage "in Marxism." One's labour directly has effects to society, so if one slacks it's pretty damn obvious. Social pressures then would make one do the best work possible. Who wants to be known as "the slacker?"

[Broletariat]

I always quote Kropotkin on this issue as I feel he sums it up best


The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages....

What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. ....

They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.

But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.

Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.

For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour--which is true--the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves.

[this is an invasion]

Who wants to continue slaving away at the same job they had before the revolution?

[mikelepore]

The part about "gets paid as much" --> "what motivates them to do their best" makes no sense. It implies that it's a standard characteristic of capitalism that workers who do their best get raises because of it, which is false. There is the going rate for each type of labor on the labor market, just as their is the going rate for each kind of barnyard animal at the cattle market.

I do think that communism has a theoretical problem of a related kind. All the people who are going to post here and say that there won't be any money or paid labor have a problem. In such a system the worker would have no reason to go to work at all. Therefore I support a form of classless society that will have paid labor. However, once the workers get to work, there wouldn't be much of a problem related to people doing their best.

[Adi Shankara]

I do think that communism has a theoretical problem of a related kind. All the people who are going to post here and say that there won't be any money or paid labor have a problem. In such a system the worker would have no reason to go to work at all. Therefore I support a form of classless society that will have paid labor. However, once the workers get to work, there wouldn't be much of a problem related to people doing their best.

but how would that work though? the minute you put money into the equation, that's the minute people start forming classes based on what they have in the bank.

[Telemakus]

I'm not too sure what the communist position with regards to this is, but as I see it it would be necessary for communities to be very localized and self-sustaining, so that everyone sees directly the benefits of their work, as well as everyone being able to see if you're not pulling your weight so they can help you get motivated.

I think people generally do like to feel like they're helping those around them, but with most modern professions there's such a removable between production and consumption that this feeling isn't achieved, so naturally people won't want to work. As so many people have this view of work being robotic drudgery, far removed from the actual benefits of the work, where the main benefit is to increase personal wealth (and not to benefit those around you), they will naturally be uncomfortable with the idea of professions being rewarded in the same way.

As added benefits, I think localization would also greatly improve the environment (you can't exploit the resources of other peoples, and are then forced to sustainably use your own) and greatly improve interpersonal relationships and cultural well-being (and increased intersocietal diversity as a result), as everyone is working together with people from their local community for common goals.

[Invincible Summer]

but how would that work though? the minute you put money into the equation, that's the minute people start forming classes based on what they have in the bank.

Indeed, which is how most people view "class" today anyway... not in ownership of production terms, but rather income.

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by Thomas_Sankara http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1791684#post1791684)
but how would that work though? the minute you put money into the equation, that's the minute people start forming classes based on what they have in the bank.Indeed, which is how most people view "class" today anyway... not in ownership of production terms, but rather income.

So you would agree that the ability to save the fruits of your labor leads to the formation of classes? The classic argument against this is simply highlighting the difference btw when the savings are eventually consumed versus when the savings are used to generate more money in the bank. The former case doesn't imply any additional income accrued from savings and is thus really just a form of delayed gratification rather than leading to the formation of a new class.

[Adi Shankara]

So you would agree that the ability to save the fruits of your labor leads to the formation of classes? The classic argument against this is simply highlighting the difference btw when the savings are eventually consumed versus when the savings are used to generate more money in the bank. The former case doesn't imply any additional income accrued from savings and is thus really just a form of delayed gratification rather than leading to the formation of a new class.

the minute people have substantially more money than others, is the minute classes start forming. people think they're better or entitled to more because they have more money in the bank.

why should anyone deserve more because they have more pieces of paper with a picture on them in their pocket?

[mcg]

Force, if you don't want to work at all and don't have a good reason not to, you don't get to use society's food, shelter, etc... If you try to take food anyway your stopped by the local militia. As for monitoring work on the job. I think workers should be overseen democratically by their peers. Elect bosses who continue to work beside them but still watch over performance from within their own ranks. To prevent a totalitarian atmosphere, we should be extremely lenient. People should have many chances to work hard, maybe an infinite number. The penalties for messing up should be light. I think most people will end up not needing incentives. Working as a team to help the world will end up being fun and important. Jobs will become a meaningful part of workers identities and how they relate to the world and society. My partner says "people will already be motivated in high paying positions. Doctors, engineers etc... do what they do because they like it not for the muhla. Plenty of people also do things they want to do even though it doesn't pay well now."

[Bitter Ashes]

Hey, after the revolution I catch somebody slacking and putting my work hours up and reducing the products that I have available to me as a result then I'll be the first one to start knocking on my neighbours' doors to rustle up a group to have a stern word. If they really wont start pulling thier weight then they can find themselves another community to feed them.

To each according to need. From each according to ability.

[MarxSchmarx]

So you would agree that the ability to save the fruits of your labor leads to the formation of classes? The classic argument against this is simply highlighting the difference btw when the savings are eventually consumed versus when the savings are used to generate more money in the bank. The former case doesn't imply any additional income accrued from savings and is thus really just a form of delayed gratification rather than leading to the formation of a new class.the minute people have substantially more money than others, is the minute classes start forming. people think they're better or entitled to more because they have more money in the bank.

why should anyone deserve more because they have more pieces of paper with a picture on them in their pocket?

The thing is, assuming they worked the same amount, they don't have more money over the course of their lifetime. They just choose to spend it at different points in time on different things.

[mikelepore]

but how would that work though? the minute you put money into the equation, that's the minute people start forming classes based on what they have in the bank.

Classes aren't based on what saving some people have. Classes are based on some people owning the means of sustaining other people's lives. The means of production are the means of life. People must obtain access to the means of production or they will die. That is what makes the workers dependent on the capitalists, and before that, the serfs dependent on the manorial lords, and before that, the plebeans dependent on the patricians. Some people's accumulated savings is not a problem.

[DaComm]

I hear this alot from anti-Marxists, and except for in anarchist societies, I can't really think of a completely proper response so I want your help.

Most capitalists will say some shit like "oh, in Marxism, whats the motivation for a factory worker to produce a good product at a car factory if he gets paid as much as the guy who is on disability, or the guy who is a doctor? what motivates them to do their best?

I can think of the overwhelming altruism provided by volunteer work, and there are millions of volunteers every year who work for non-profit because they want to live in a positive society...I also think that communism could instill penalties for those who are obviously slacking but that sounds like slave labor to a degree at that point.

Or, maybe the profit motive would be obsolete because everything one needs would be provided by the state?

can someone help me out here? :confused: Marx doesn't really touch on the issue as extensively as he should've...

EDIT: another argument I could think of was that capitalism has a problem of incentive too, such as at places where thousands of Americans work, like wal-mart etc. where no matter how hard they work in an hour, they still get paid only 8.50 an hour and nothing more, no matter what--that, and it's stupid to assume that everyone is entitled to a promotion when there are only so many spots open for a job.


They can actually take satisfactory in their work, unlike in Capitalism because it Capitalism the products made are reflective solely of the Capitalist's intelligence, creativity, etc. Ummmm, they aren't plundered everytime they get a pay-check. Their work directly contributes to the happiness and well-being of other workers. You have a garunteed existence. Workers acheive a feeling of happiness, success, accomplishment, fulfillment, etc. by being actively engaged in their work's decisions, using their judgement on things, using their intelligence and creativity to design and create a product, etc. All of these factors that attribute to human happiness are amiss in Capitalism, Communism will allow people to find this self-actualization that directly leads to happiness, and happiness is the ultimate incentive.

[Stephen Colbert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW7nnLNANtQ

watch all 5 parts, they are very helpful

[Invincible Summer]

So you would agree that the ability to save the fruits of your labor leads to the formation of classes? The classic argument against this is simply highlighting the difference btw when the savings are eventually consumed versus when the savings are used to generate more money in the bank. The former case doesn't imply any additional income accrued from savings and is thus really just a form of delayed gratification rather than leading to the formation of a new class.

I was just saying that income/savings is how most people understand "class" today, not necessarily saying it's correct. However, I do think that - in this thought experiment - it's possible for a different ("un-Marxist") type of "class structure" to appear due to income/savings. Yes, it's just people choosing to spend at different times, but that's not to say that it's impossible for people to congregate based on their spending.

[MarxSchmarx]

So you would agree that the ability to save the fruits of your labor leads to the formation of classes? The classic argument against this is simply highlighting the difference btw when the savings are eventually consumed versus when the savings are used to generate more money in the bank. The former case doesn't imply any additional income accrued from savings and is thus really just a form of delayed gratification rather than leading to the formation of a new class. I was just saying that income/savings is how most people understand "class" today, not necessarily saying it's correct. However, I do think that - in this thought experiment - it's possible for a different ("un-Marxist") type of "class structure" to appear due to income/savings.

Sure. To the extent that the prevailing understanding of class revolves around how much money one has in the bank, I think this is not only possible but likely to some extent inevitable in socialism.


Yes, it's just people choosing to spend at different times, but that's not to say that it's impossible for people to congregate based on their spending.

Continuing with the hypothetical post-capitalist society, why would this be a bad thing?