Equal Rewards in Communism?

[MoaninO'Cryin']

I have noticed while browsing that a good number of members reject the concept of "equal reward" in favor of a system that rather supports more reward depending on the labor being done. People say that it was a misconception/lie by anti-leftists to make communism look bad, and even that Marx disagreed with the concept. I, for one, believe that it has been overlooked. Yes, we have all heard of the human nature argument stating that humans are greedy and this will never work, etc. but, history has proven that human nature isn't as simple as that. We have made it clear that humans can survive and adapt in nearly every socio-economic system they could throw at us, however, the perception of "human nature" was different in every one. This is because human nature is mainly dependent on the conditions the person was developed in. A person born and raised in, say, a socialist promoting environment will have a completely different set of morals and social values than one in a capitalist environment. So in short, "human nature" can be whatever the situation calls for. With that out of the way, let's get to the meat and potatos. Why is it necessary to have different "rewards" for different jobs? If everyone in an economic system was provided with human necessities and tools for their job of choice, wouldn't it let more leeway for people to pick the jobs they wanted and allow cooperation to thrive in the work environment?

[taka því rólega]

Forgive me if I'm incorrect but I believe "rewards" may be necessary to encourage people to do jobs that no-one really wants to do - without which we would not be able to provide human necessities to all people.

[Broletariat]

Why is it necessary to have different "rewards" for different jobs?

It's not like only carpenters will be rewarded guitars or something. It's more like, someone who works longer will get more labour credits or some such. It would be silly to reward everyone the same thing considering people like different things and have different physical/emotional needs.

[MoaninO'Cryin']

Forgive me if I'm incorrect but I believe "rewards" may be necessary to encourage people to do jobs that no-one really wants to do - without which we would not be able to provide human necessities to all people.
Could you explain? What jobs would you have in mind?

It would be silly to reward everyone the same thing considering people like different things and have different physical/emotional needs.
That comes back to my theory stating that human nature is dependent on the system in which it was taught. Yes, people like different things and have different needs etc, but what about rather than focusing these things on reward we focus on the job itself? Doctors become doctors because they like providing health services to other people, teachers become teachers because they like caring for the younger generation and just teaching in general. If we let people decide what job they want a more creative and productive workplace would be born because all of the people that work in it have the job they have because they love it and is their main focus in life. People also need social interaction and being able to socialize with their fellow man and workers. I'm not too sure I'm making a clear point here, however I'm fairly new to the leftist viewpoint of thinking. Any critical response would be appreciated.

[$lim_$weezy]

"Rewards" as in gratitude by the members of the community would of course never go away. However, I am opposed to economic rewards in return for different types or amounts of labor, as these have no effect on the workers' needs or desires. The different physical/emotional needs that are specific to each person would either be a combined community effort (if it is deemed they should be) or acquired by the individual through free association (not having anything to do with money).

However, even given that, I am not vehemently opposed to labor notes, and would of course support their implementation.

I also agree about the human nature thing. Well-put, and what a vision of betterment! People actually wanting to do their jobs and help others! It would be magnificent!

[taka því rólega]

Could you explain? What jobs would you have in mind?

You know, the stuff nobody enjoys but currently has to do to earn a living - cleaning, waste collection/processing, administrative stuff, hard labour - anything which wouldn't be pursued as an interest or passion.

It's like, some people do genuinely enjoy building guitars or writing books and do so not just for the need of demand but for personal fulfilment and enjoyment, whereas the majority of menial and meaningless jobs created by capitalism and unfortunately many which are necessary for maintaining society are done only for the wages they provide.

[ckaihatsu]

Why is it necessary to have different "rewards" for different jobs? If everyone in an economic system was provided with human necessities and tools for their job of choice, wouldn't it let more leeway for people to pick the jobs they wanted and allow cooperation to thrive in the work environment?




[W]hat about rather than focusing [...] on reward we focus on the job itself? Doctors become doctors because they like providing health services to other people, teachers become teachers because they like caring for the younger generation and just teaching in general. If we let people decide what job they want a more creative and productive workplace would be born because all of the people that work in it have the job they have because they love it and is their main focus in life.




opposed to economic rewards in return for different types or amounts of labor, as these have no effect on the workers' needs or desires. The different physical/emotional needs that are specific to each person would either be a combined community effort (if it is deemed they should be) or acquired by the individual through free association (not having anything to do with money).


This topic came up on another thread -- I think it makes a difference whether one is looking at the issue from the standpoint of the *individual* or from the standpoint of *society*.

Many -- especially those who are new to politics and/or are more right-wing -- will *only* look at the issues from the standpoint of the individual. Many -- especially those from more comfortable backgrounds -- will then say, "Hey -- we're *done* here. The *individual* has *plenty* of opportunity to make a life of their own choosing because of how far humanity has come. There's *nothing wrong* with the status quo, so it's all on you -- it's sink-or-swim, baby!"





Forgive me if I'm incorrect but I believe "rewards" may be necessary to encourage people to do jobs that [I]no-one really wants to do - without which we would not be able to provide human necessities to all people.




[T]he stuff nobody enjoys but currently has to do to earn a living - cleaning, waste collection/processing, administrative stuff, hard labour - anything which wouldn't be pursued as an interest or passion.

It's like, some people do genuinely enjoy building guitars or writing books and do so not just for the need of demand but for personal fulfilment and enjoyment, whereas the majority of menial and meaningless jobs created by capitalism and unfortunately many which are necessary for maintaining society are done only for the wages they provide.


Two main points here:

- What would be the nature of the 'reward' that a communistic society could provide, if such a special 'incentive' was to be offered for more-distasteful and less-desired work duties -- ? (Please note that, by definition, a communistic society would be able to provide for everyone's basic human needs and material goods would *not* be commodified in any way.)

- What kinds of tasks would the people of a communistic society find to be 'distasteful' and 'insulting' to their sense of human dignity?


I have my own answers to these, of course, but I'll leave them aside here so that you may use your own discretion:







[A] more-intensively-educated, higher-commitment (life) role -- like that of a dedicated professional like a doctor -- would still receive appropriate societal appreciation and respect from colleagues and the public, *without* the artificially inflated status symbol of conspicuous consumption (allowing for unfettered non-reckless personal consumption done "logistically", out of purely genuine *personal* motivation, for *appreciable* goals).

*However*, this noble societal spirit of equanimity, even if profoundly heartfelt by each and every person, may not necessarily be enough if such a society found itself lacking for a supply of (medical) professionals, perhaps knowingly but suddenly unprepared in the wake of a calamitous natural disaster. How could such a goodhearted social order *not* have been able to motivate enough of its people to step up into preparation for such a service when news reports had long and consistently made it clear that the professional fields were lacking?

Perhaps the heightened respect of peers was *not* enough of an incentive for many to put in the extra time and effort when they could get along to their personal contentment in *lower-skilled* roles for society. So, just by the way the numbers popped up "on their own" this potential post-capitalist society found a few -- or several -- major areas of public service to be consistently critically understaffed.

I won't turn the rest of this post into an advertisement, but I *will* at least note that my own approach to this problematic "dynamic" is to provide a unique kind of proportionate "compensation" in return for increased quality of efforts over time. My model -- at my blog entry, and attached here -- uses labor-hour credits that are gauged to the hazard and difficulty of the work done. These labor credits *do* circulate but are *not* exchangeable for any material goods. Rather they are passed along in turn, at the discretion of the liberated laborer who worked for them, to anyone else who provides *their* own liberated labor in some form that someone with credits is willing to "pay" for.

In practice the possession of labor credits (sourced only from one's own work completed) confers a kind of *labor-organizing* authority, which can be coordinated with others who also possess labor credits. Only those *with* labor credits can fund ongoing and future liberated-labor collective work projects, the results of which are necessarily for the common good.







[A] mass self-liberated workers' co-administration would be *in control* of *all* of society's technological implements, with full collective discretion as to their use, disuse, simplification, improvement, or replacement by other technologies.

This is to say that there's no reason to consider a civilization's tasks of sanitation to be *fixed* as a set process, and unalterable.

Given a mass revolutionary displacement of capitalist control the revolutionary workers would definitely *not* be glad about inheriting such work roles as sewer worker. It would be in their common interest to *supersede* that method of sanitation altogether in favor of some satisfactory method that is far less work-intensive, if not simply automated altogether. (My favorite example of "automation" is the use of plumbing for carrying water, etc.)

[Klaatu]

Why not look at it this way: We must have a system that stops some people from being lazy, and not pulling their weight.

This is where liberalism fails. It rewards sloth and inactivity. This goes for all economic classes.

[Sir Comradical]

Forgive me if I'm incorrect but I believe "rewards" may be necessary to encourage people to do jobs that no-one really wants to do - without which we would not be able to provide human necessities to all people.

Correct. For example dangerous work like mining which in capitalist countries is usually poorly paid.

[CommunityBeliever]

Forgive me if I'm incorrect but I believe "rewards" may be necessary to encourage people to do jobs that no-one really wants to do - without which we would not be able to provide human necessities to all people.I think all those jobs could be automated in communist society. Most of the brightest computer scientists in capitalism are working on figuring out how to get people to click advertisements rather then on things that will actually improve the human condition like automating jobs.

[ckaihatsu]

I think all those jobs could be automated in communist society. Most of the brightest computer scientists in capitalism are working on figuring out how to get people to click advertisements rather then on things that will actually improve the human condition like automating jobs.


Okay, so that means all we have to do is get those ads to be for *communism* and then we're HOME FREE...!!!!


= D

[hatzel]

We must have a system that stops some people from being lazy, and not pulling their weight.

Really? I didn't know it was that way...I thought the idea was, rather than creating a system to keep people from not working, instead we should allow a system to develop in which people will want to work. I know it's just a word game more than anything else, but I think there's a significant enough difference between the implications of the two statements for it to be worth bringing up...

[ckaihatsu]

Why not look at it this way: We must have a system that stops some people from being lazy, and not pulling their weight.

This is where liberalism fails. It rewards sloth and inactivity. This goes for all economic classes.





Really? I didn't know it was that way...I thought the idea was, rather than creating a system to keep people from not working, instead we should allow a system to develop in which people will want to work. I know it's just a word game more than anything else, but I think there's a significant enough difference between the implications of the two statements for it to be worth bringing up...


More accurately still, I think, is to say that those who *are* working should have full collective sovereignty over their work and the products of their work, *and* should have full, unfettered access to society's industrial implements.

(This avoids making a fetish of work itself, especially under currently exploitative conditions.)

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Equal reward is better because then people can do what they actually want to do.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Equal reward is better because then people can do what they actually want to do.

But then say, someone IS lazy, and someone else DOES work literally harder, longer, etc? Then what?

I work at a union job, and some people most definitely do take advantage of the protections the union offers us by being lazy and sloppy, refusing to do the 'shittier' jobs etc. Ive seen other shop stewards take personal favors and perks from the management team so long as they turn the blind eye when they fuck with the other workers.

So, in other words, in the real world, you will have sloths. How to deal with them and this issue is very important. Maybe go off life senority? Those older more experienced workers can do the easier jobs (for obvious reasons) while the younger, healthier cats can do the heaviest of all.

I dont believe in equal rewards though. Thats being a bit naive.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

But then say, someone IS lazy, and someone else DOES work literally harder, longer, etc? Then what?

I work at a union job, and some people most definitely do take advantage of the protections the union offers us by being lazy and sloppy, refusing to do the 'shittier' jobs etc. Ive seen other shop stewards take personal favors and perks from the management team so long as they turn the blind eye when they fuck with the other workers.

So, in other words, in the real world, you will have sloths. How to deal with them and this issue is very important. Maybe go off life senority? Those older more experienced workers can do the easier jobs (for obvious reasons) while the younger, healthier cats can do the heaviest of all.

I dont believe in equal rewards though. Thats being a bit naive.

In a communist society where by and large people can do what work they like without being forced into something they dislike via material pressures, slackers are only cheating themselves. I get that there seems to be some kind of principle to rewarding those who work harder, but idk if it even applies to a society where people actually, for once, do what they like? Why is it more deserving to happen to have an intrest that you enjoy so much you work "hard" at it? In a communist society, perenial slackers (if they exist) would be viewed with pity, rather than contempt. How sad that you can do whatever you want and can't find anything you like enough to pstop you from rushing home to play video games.

I know i've missed out on "essential tasks" that any community will have to make sure are done, whether people will actually volunteer for mundane but nessacary tasks, or it'll have to be mandated, idk, but surely they'd be a minority of work in a communist society?

[B0LSHEVIK]

In a communist society where by and large people can do what work they like without being forced into something they dislike via material pressures, slackers are only cheating themselves. I get that there seems to be some kind of principle to rewarding those who work harder, but idk if it even applies to a society where people actually, for once, do what they like? Why is it more deserving to happen to have an intrest that you enjoy so much you work "hard" at it? In a communist society, perenial slackers (if they exist) would be viewed with pity, rather than contempt. How sad that you can do whatever you want and can't find anything you like enough to pstop you from rushing home to play video games.

I know i've missed out on "essential tasks" that any community will have to make sure are done, whether people will actually volunteer for mundane but nessacary tasks, or it'll have to be mandated, idk, but surely they'd be a minority of work in a communist society?

Well, there are plenty of jobs that suck, literally. Some are vital to a society so that it may function as a well running one is supposed to. Who will do these jobs if all you do is what you want? I mean if were all egalitarian in terms of rewards, who then will put in the time and effort to become a chemist, or a doctor, etc? Theoretically, the French Revolution is extraordinary because it allowed a meritocracy of sorts to develop for a first in history (in the west). Why was Napoleon so successful in battle? Because he was up against aristocratic generals who hadn't earned their positions as he had, but simply inherited them.

[ckaihatsu]

I know i've missed out on "essential tasks" that any community will have to make sure are done, whether people will actually volunteer for mundane but nessacary tasks, or it'll have to be mandated, idk, but surely they'd be a minority of work in a communist society?


By *one* mode of local collectivized work, it might be possible to *share* all the work roles therein, simply by stepping through them, in rotation, through time.

(I don't particularly advocate this approach, though, since it fuses the political function together with the liberated-labor, or economic, functioning. This would make a generalization of work roles into larger, mass projects more difficult.)





Rotation system of work roles

A universal template for covering all work roles through time, going forward, for a post-capitalism, moneyless, collectivized political economy

by Chris Kaihatsu, [email protected], 10-10, for 'Allocating jobs' thread at RevLeft.com, tinyurl.com/24tohdc


- Everyone will assist everyone else in the local area with properly fulfilling the duties of any given work role.

- Unit of time per role must remain consistent.

- People in an area of work roles cannot switch their placement in line in the circle.

- Any roles at larger scales are either in addition to local work roles or else are entirely in replacement of smaller-scale work roles.

- New additions to an area of work roles enter the line in the circle at the bottom, beginning their rotation with a half-cycle of less-popular work roles.

- New collectively agreed-upon work roles will be placed in the existing sequence according to their ranking on a scale of 1 to 10, as averaged from the rankings submitted by those in the local area of work roles.


Rotation system of work roles

http://postimage.org/image/1d53k7nd0/