Three questions

[The Man]

1. If this hypothetical society was based on communism, why would people want to still be Janitors, Garbageman, and so on and forth. Why would anyone want to still do these jobs?

2. What if someone says "I produce, and work harder than everyone else! I deserve more!"?

3. How would we bring forth innovation in such a society?

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

1. These jobs are simple, easy to do things that are necessary and can be made fun (like listening to your headphones while you sweep, or finding an easily-fixable TV in the trash) there are many reasons why people actually LIKE jobs the rest of us see as crap, but I can't explain them all. Heck, some people like the back-breaking work of farming because it gives them character; I like my dishwashing job cause the people I work with are cool, I get a robot to do most of the work, I can listen to music while I work, and I get a free meal.

2. Prove them wrong? Or tell them to take more breaks, they've earned it.

3. Depends on what you want to innovate I guess. See a need, fill a need.

[Broletariat]

1. If this hypothetical society was based on communism, why would people want to still be Janitors, Garbageman, and so on and forth. Why would anyone want to still do these jobs?

First of all, the majority of these jobs would be made much better in terms of working conditions. Secondly, some of these jobs could be done away with entirely, janitors? Pick up your own mess, far more efficient to have everyone spend 5 minutes cleaning up a spill that just happened rather than have 1 person dedicate a career to cleaning up spills that have long gone sticky. Thirdly, we could easily imagine a system where access to certain luxury goods would be restricted unless a certain amount of "undesirable" labour had been preformed, though this might wholly be unnecessary.


2. What if someone says "I produce, and work harder than everyone else! I deserve more!"?

This is highly unlikely, "work" would be largely done away with. Labour that we now call work would be mostly enjoyable under Communism, people have hobbies that are very productive they could pursue etc.


3. How would we bring forth innovation in such a society?

Innovation is not something that can be specifically worked on, it happens almost randomly.

[syndicat]

There's inevitably going to work. Including tasks that aren't fun. That's part of the human condition. If the working class is to actually liberate itself and establish social equality, then the jobs will have to re-organized so that everyone does the physical tasks, and the undeireable or boring tasks are shared out and become a part of everyone's jobs. Like everyone scheduling a certain amount of time for cleaning. So there wouldn't be "janitors" if this implies a person dedicated to just that.

Innovation doesn't require personal enrichment to be motivated. People can be motivated by doing something that is socially beneficial.

If the jobs are re-organized so that the less desireable or more noxious tasks, and also the more interesting and skill tasks, are shared out, then someone can't justify being paid more either because "I'm skilled! I know stuff!" or "I work hard!".

[Amphictyonis]

1. If this hypothetical society was based on communism, why would people want to still be Janitors, Garbageman, and so on and forth. Why would anyone want to still do these jobs?


Taking care of the sanitary and kindred needs of street and district by voluntary committees of house and locality affords the best results, since such bodies, themselves tenants of the given district, are personally interested in the health and safety of their families and friends. This system worked much better in Russia than the subsequently established regular police force. The latter consisting mostly of the worst city elements, proved corrupt, brutal, and oppressive. It is true, of course, that there are certain kinds of work -such as engineering: civil, electrical, mechanical-which the industrial councils will not be able to acquire by actual practice. But what they will learn of the general processes of industry will be of inestimable value as preparation. For the rest, the closer bond of friendship and cooperation between worker and technician is a paramount necessity.


2. What if someone says "I produce, and work harder than everyone else! I deserve more!"?



The revolutionary community will depend more on awakening the social consciousness and solidarity of its delinquents than on punishment. It will rely on the example set by its working members, and it will be right in doing so. For the natural attitude of the industrious man to the shirker is such that the latter will find the social atmosphere so unpleasant that he will prefer to work and enjoy the respect and good will of his fellows rather than to be despised in idleness.

The hope of material betterment is, as already mentioned, a powerful factor in the forward movement of humanity. But that incentive alone is not sufficient to inspire the masses to give them the vision of a new and better world, and cause them to face danger and privation for its sake. For that an ideal is needed, an ideal which appeals not only to the stomach but even more to the heart and imagination, which rouses our dormant longing for what is fine and beautiful, for the spiritual and cultural values of life. An ideal, in short, which wakens the inherent social instincts of man, feeds his sympathies and fellow-feeling, fires his love of liberty and justice, and imbues even the lowest with nobility of thought and deed, as we frequently witness in the catastrophic events of life. Let a great tragedy happen anywhere -an earthquake, flood, or railroad accident-and the compassion of the whole world goes out to the sufferers. Acts of heroic self-sacrifice, of brave rescue, and of unstinted aid demonstrate the real nature of man and his deep-felt brotherhood and unity.


This is true of mankind in all times, climes, and social strata. The story of Amundsen is a striking illustration of it. After decades of arduous and dangerous work the famous Norwegian explorer resolves to enjoy his remaining years in peaceful literary pursuits. He is announcing his decision at a banquet given in his honor, and almost at the same moment comes the news that the Nobile expedition to the North Pole had met with disaster. On the instant Amundsen renounces all his plans of a quiet life and prepares to fly to the aid of the lost aviators, fully aware of the peril of such an undertaking. Human sympathy and the compelling impulse to help those in distress overcome all considerations of personal safety, and Amundsen sacrifices his life in an attempt to rescue the Nobile party.
Deep in all of us lives the spirit of Amundsen. How many men of science have given up their lives in seeking knowledge by which to benefit their fellow-men-how many physicians and nurses have perished in the work of ministering to people stricken with contagious disease. How many men and women have voluntarily faced certain death in the effort to check an epidemic which was decimating their country or even some foreign land-how many men, common workingmen, miners, sailors, railroad employees-unknown to fame and unsung-have given themselves in the spirit of Amundsen? Their name is legion.


It is this human nature, this idealism, which must be roused by the social revolution. Without it the revolution cannot be, without it, it cannot live. Without it man is forever doomed to remain a slave and a weakling.
It is the work of the Anarchist, of the revolutionist, of the intelligent, class-conscious proletarian to exemplify and cultivate this spirit and instill it in others. It alone can conquer the powers of evil and darkness, and build a new world of humanity, liberty, and justice.


3. How would we bring forth innovation in such a society?

T2PyyO1nv7I


(Quotes provided by Alexander Berkman)

[Kotze]

For less popular tasks that have to be done there are 2 approaches, which have been advocated together with different weightings: 1. a fair mix of more and less popular duties for everyone, 2. better pay for more arduous tasks. For each approach you need a way to estimate a task's sucktitude.

The task mixing is complicated, given that you can't really slice tasks in any way you want, and the slicing itself comes at a cost, since you have to consider stuff like commuting time. Changing pay to make up for differences in the tasks or task mixes looks very easy in comparison, say when your personal task mix is unfair a hypothetical planner could increase your income from one day to the next by 10.5023% without getting a headache, whereas changing your task mix would also require that the task mix for other people is changed.

However, the apparant simplicity of pay differentials is somewhat misleading. Suppose, due to no fault of my own, I get the tip of one of my pinkies chopped off in a work accident. Suppose there is an insurance system in place for accidents like this and a compensation-payment list is consulted. This list can have an inner logic that is plausible, like demanding more compensation for a whole lost pinky than for the tip and more for a lost hand than for that finger — but there is always an arbitrariness to saying this loss is worth that amount of euros or consumption points or labour vouchers or whatever, and there's no escaping it, it's not that the required compensation likely misses the right amount, it's that no such amount exists that makes me truly equal to my former self, we are just pretending that it does.

Similarly, if you do a task that sucks more than the task I do and I get paid less to "make up" for this difference, I'm not as close to knowing how sucky your task is as you are. By requiring everybody to have some share in the less popular tasks, and it doesn't have to be a precisely equal mix of good and bad for everyone, we make everybody aware of working conditions where they are the worst, which increases the likeliness that these conditions get improved.

Something near consensus exists when it comes to some shitty tasks, but people have different individual judgements and likes and dislikes, so even if we could assign all people a mix with exactly the same ratio of yay and suck according to the judgement of the majority, that sort of precision would be kinda pointless, we would be optimizing for the wrong goal.

People should be enabled to vote directly on the general minimum hourly payment and general income maximum and to also allocate some amount of pay bonus where they work. An individual's power to influence the outcome of these votes on the macro or micro level should be independent of that individual's own income level. The vote on which people are getting the pay bonus should be proportional, so a majority at your workplace would control the majority of that, but not everything.

Short answer on innovation: Free internet access to all texts and we do away with copyright, a subsidy for those who study engineering and science stuff, research grants and prizes instead of patents, more free time.

[blake 3:17]

I`ll only address the first question.
1. If this hypothetical society was based on communism, why would people want to still be Janitors, Garbageman, and so on and forth. Why would anyone want to still do these jobs? I`ve worked very closely with many janitors who took a lot of pride in their work. That`s been primarily in public schools where they knew their work was appreciated and necessary. I know a fewer garbage collectors, and met most when we were on strike together, but there again they knew they worked hard for a common good.

In a rational socialist economy, there`d be a reduction in useless messes, production of stupid packages and garbage products and the work of cleaners in general could be made efficient and worthwhile.

Current modes of production figure in planned obsolescence, which is vicious ecologically and in terms of class experience and politics.

[DaComm]

1. A lot of custodial workers are retired and take up the role to keep occupied, other times people actually enjoy being a janitor.

2. Gulag. A common strawman is that all socialists advocate the gift economy idea, while many of us actually prefer the labor card system- an un-circulated means of remuneration based on work hours and effort.

3. Often times it is not the Capitalists which we can credit technological and medical innovations with, but average people who work and innovate for their firms. I like to point to the example of Albert Einstein, a great scientist who we can credit much of our current knowledge of physics to. He was admittedly a Socialist, and obviously not a Capitalist.

[Tablo]

1. If this hypothetical society was based on communism, why would people want to still be Janitors, Garbageman, and so on and forth. Why would anyone want to still do these jobs?
Those jobs can be fun to some people(I would probably become a janitor if the pay didn't suck). Also, these jobs are amongst the most important so I think one could take pride in that.


2. What if someone says "I produce, and work harder than everyone else! I deserve more!"?Well they can complain all they want, but that doesn't make it true.



3. How would we bring forth innovation in such a society?Same way we do now, with research. Innovation may be even greater and of more benefit to society with the absence of the profit motive which aims to create products for profit rather than for quality.

[Omsk]

1. = Everyone has to take their part in the push forward,some by hard work,some by scientific study,some by cleaning places and maintaining hygiene in the places the other comrades work.Nothing shameful about that,i would be ashamed if i was a lazy drunk,or generaly a lazy and unproductive person,a person that in no way helps the community and himself to prosper.If the pay would be nice,why not!Fair,honest work it is.:)
2.=If the labour is hard,he would recieve additional breaks,or posibly more nutritious portions of food,nothing that would place his earning infront of the earnings of the other members of the work - union.Such pracite was popular in work activities,but mainly as a morale boost,the comrades were stimulated by these small rewards to even greater deed's of true,socialist work.
3=Innovations would happen normally,since all branches of culture,industry and science will inevitably advance,that i am certain with.

[maskerade]

1. am i the only one who thinks rotation would be a good idea if no one wanted a particular job? but personally i'd like to see all the undesirable jobs done by former CEOs...and if that's too authoritarian, reward people more for those jobs? shorter work days etc there are lots of solutions.

2. socialism and communism is about breaking down this disgusting form of individualism, and i honestly don't think this would happen. however, if it does, as some people have suggested, more breaks, a 'worker of the month' sticker etc.

3. same way it happens now...people don't come up with ideas to make money, they come up with ideas and realize they can make money from them. ideas and people that will be innovative will still exist.

[William Howe]

1. If this hypothetical society was based on communism, why would people want to still be Janitors, Garbageman, and so on and forth. Why would anyone want to still do these jobs?


Because janitors would keep the buildings clean, garbagemen would keep the streets cleans, etc.. You would receive equal earnings for these jobs as any others, and believe it or not, plenty of people are janitors or garbagemen, and love their jobs.

2. What if someone says "I produce, and work harder than everyone else! I deserve more!"?


Communism has nothing against breaks and days off. If you produce 5x what a typical individual should in a work day, then you definitely deserve extra bonuses.

3. How would we bring forth innovation in such a society?


The Soviet Union developed massive advances in technology, such as healthcare and spacecraft. Seemed pretty easy for them to innovate.

[Rafiq]

1. Becuase if these Jobs are worse than the rest, they will receive benefits from them. For example, perhaps garbage men would not have to work as long as everyone else. Besides, Work may be something that is done in solidarity with each other and in friendship. So you'd develop friends with other janitors and garbageman and have a good time together. All Jobs will have their ups and downs.

2. ? I don't understand... Who would be producing more? Anyway, everyone will get what they need and every working person will be able to get the same stuff as another.... So I don't see why anyone would think this. You can create super abundances of almost anything. Like I said, every job will have benefits.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_inventions_and_technology_reco rds#.C2.A0Soviet_Union

Most useful inventions are made within the public sector, even in the united states. As a matter of fact, the military is the father of most of the technology we have today. Although it will be stateless, perhaps different regions will have competitions in science, ect.

Competition will exist, but no one will starve for it. It will be for fun.


Note:

Do not put Communism in today's context. Communism is hundreds of years away. We don't even know if humans will be doing any labor at all!

[Oswy]

1. If this hypothetical society was based on communism, why would people want to still be Janitors, Garbageman, and so on and forth. Why would anyone want to still do these jobs?

2. What if someone says "I produce, and work harder than everyone else! I deserve more!"?

3. How would we bring forth innovation in such a society?

1. Why wouldn't someone want to be a janitor if they are living in a society where their basic human needs (and those of everyone else, including their family and friends) are guaranteed? I'd take that job right now!

2. This partly depends on how you define 'deserve'. The radical-left position is that everyone should be rewarded according to their effort, not their productivity, because it is only their effort over which they have any reasonable control. The Really-radical-left position, however, is that 'deserve' is a less valuable concept than 'satisfaction' of everyone's needs.

3. When everyone's basic needs are satisfied they don't have to worry about paying their bills, obtaining medicines, finding food or clothing or having a home. Under such circumstances many many more people than now would be freed up to engage their creative human energies - and, besides, everyone would get to university, should they choose so and could pass competency/entry examinations.

[MarxSchmarx]

1. If this hypothetical society was based on communism, why would people want to still be Janitors, Garbageman, and so on and forth. Why would anyone want to still do these jobs?


Just for a second, let us imagine we have an ideal social situation where all the jobs are somehow spread out equally.

Now, I have 1 hour in which to engage in socially useful labor during my day. The remaining 23 I spend as I see fit.

Now, I could spend that 1 hour as a psychiatrist listening to people talk about their problems....
I could spend that 1 hour going to tables and asking people whether they want Italian or ranch....
I could spend that 1 hour filling out paper work to make sure that a patient receives their proper medication....
I could spend that 1 hour standing outside a hip bar kicking out the undermensch....
OR
I could put on my headphones, go from building complex to building complex and smash their garbage into a big truck. Frankly, I'd choose the last one any day.