No incentive to work..

[Desy]

When discussing with some friends, I run into the same road block, and that is "no one will have an incentive to work". Is there any studys that disagree with that argument? ?

[Art Vandelay]

Well if people want to have resources to continue their existence, then I'm pretty sure they'll continue to work. Not to mention this kinda runs on the assumption that people are naturally lazy or some other re hashing of that old bollocks. You show me someone who is lazy and I'll show you someone not doing something he's interested in, ie: a square peg being shoved into a round hole.

[The Jay]

There was a reason that people thought the lower phase would include labor vouchers. The question of remuneration and incentive is a big one and I don't have a position that I am completely sure of in that regards at the moment but I think that the debate must be had.

[Art Vandelay]

There was a reason that people thought the lower phase would include labor vouchers. The question of remuneration and incentive is a big one and I don't have a position that I am completely sure of in that regards at the moment but I think that the debate must be had.

That's exactly what I was getting at however. Unless (in socialism or lower phase, whatever you prefer) someone wants to go off on their own in the bush, or not be allowed access to the fruits of societies labor, then I don't see why someone would refuse to work.

[Old Bolshie]

When discussing with some friends, I run into the same road block, and that is "no one will have an incentive to work". Is there any studys that disagree with that argument? ?

How no one will have an incentive to work if you receive according to your contribution/work? If you work hard you receive more, if you work less you receive less in a society where there is no exploitation and therefore no one gets rich at the expenses of another. All of what you have is fruit from your own labor. You want more incentive than this? Surely you will have more incentive than in today's society where hard workers are generally the ones from the bottom of society and remain there despite of their hard labor.

[Alfonso Capriles]

Under pure Communism 'work' is a delightful liberation where every person expresses their innate talent and enlightens the whole community.

[Yuppie Grinder]

If you think people have to be threatened with living under a bridge to do any work you have an unrealistically pessemistic view of humanity.

[Quail]

There is always an incentive to "work" if what you are doing is something that you enjoy and makes you feel as though you're doing something positive for yourself and those around you.

I'd argue there is less incentive to work in a capitalist society, because all work ever achieves is to make someone else rich. In a communist society people would reap all the fruits of their labour, as opposed to having the fruit taken away and being given back a slice.

As for the less enjoyable jobs, the incentive to get those done is being able to live in a nice environment which allows for you to do the more enjoyable things. Nobody wants to live in a shithole, and I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to arrange rotas (for example) for the jobs people didn't want to do.

[Ele'ill]

work now in its entirety is a directive handed down, to workers by bosses in the interest of capital, entirely around making money, staying competitive, and expanding to make more money, I don't have an absolute answer as to what things will look like after the transformation of society but I think we can speculate that people within their neighborhoods, towns, cities, will see what they want done and they will attempt to do it and probably succeed. An interesting personal point albeit anecdotal is that through my years working I've of course met people who hated their jobs but I've also met people who felt that their potential was being restrained. Not that they wanted to move up in the company and be a boss but they felt their ideas, good ideas, were shit on and thrown out. Their ideas weren't compatible with the process of capitalist industry, from construction to retail etc..

Also, if there are jobs that nobody wants to do (and I think there's probably a lot of them) then perhaps these jobs are irrelevant, at least at the moment, in the geographic location that they formerly existed.

[Alfonso Capriles]

A kibbutz, is an example of a profitless mini-society. Granted it's under the auspices of Zionist colonialism but nonetheless.

Otherwise as Gourmetpez said, or meant to say, people are less likely to give a fuck about work (emancipatory labour even less) when they are living under capitalisms' bridge. That's when their hope is gone and capitalism has drained all they can from the poor individual.

[Red Enemy]

What incentives are there to work now?

Paying your bills, feeding your family, and buying an xbox 360 or snowmobile that you will never have time to use because you work all the time?

Do your friends think like the wallstreet journal?

http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/wsjoriginal.jpg

[Red Banana]

If anything, Capitalism is the biggest threat to the incentive to work. I get paid the same wage no matter how productive I am. If the boss isn't looking, I'm slacking.

How productive I am at work doesn't matter one bit to me because I'm not the one making a profit off of that work. It is in my interest to do as little work as possible for as much money as possible. If I actually received the full fruits of my labor I would work harder because in that case, the more I work, the more I get.

In a communist society, the incentive to work will be driven by the same two forces it always has: need and want. If a wire goes down and everybody in town loses heating, we're not just gonna sit around because being lazy is just so damn fun, we're gonna go out and fix it so our homes are heated again. If we have the ability to make/do something we want or need, we will make/do it because we want or need it. Like the saying goes, if there's a will there's a way.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Under pure Communism 'work' is a delightful liberation where every person expresses their innate talent and enlightens the whole community.

Well I am very utopian, but I wouldn't go that far.

I do agree with you that in pure communism it will be easier to go to work.
If you give someone the opportunity to pick the job he likes he will work many times better than in a job he does not like, and if he thinks he is working for the greater good, instead of personal survival, he will work even better.

If I was given the opportunity to pick the job I wanted I would be a farmer.
I like plants and animals, so I would love to work in a farm, even better if it is a communal farm.


If you were given an opportunity to pick a job you want, what would you pick? (this question goes to whoever sees it, not just to the person I replyed to)

[Fourth Internationalist]

"From each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs and wants."

If you don't do the first, you don't get the latter.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

"From each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her needs and wants."

If you don't do the first, you don't get the latter.

Who is to stop me? The state?

[Fourth Internationalist]

Who is to stop me? The state?

People.

[Manic Impressive]

A strange delusion possesses the working classes of the nations where capitalist civilization holds its sway. This delusion drags in its train the individual and social woes which for two centuries have tortured sad humanity. This delusion is the love of work, the furious passion for work, pushed even to the exhaustion of the vital force of the individual and his progeny. Instead of opposing this mental aberration, the priests, the economists and the moralists have cast a sacred halo over work.
worth a read
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1883/lazy/index.htm

[Poison Frog]

The example above about a pipe needing repair, as residents aren't getting gas or whatever. You don't have a spontaneous activity, local blokes suddenly knowing how to fix the pipe. You need expertise, otherwise who maintains the pipes generally. All of the engineering roles need to be filled on a permanent basis.

But anyway, this question causes me problems too. A general theme in this thread even, seems to be that people will be incentivised to work because they can work in a field they enjoy. Someone posits that perhaps the jobs nobody wants, will prove unnecessary.

Cleaning drains and sewers out is always going to be necessary. People flush cleansing wipes down the loo and cause massive blockages that mean someone has to get into a protective suit and immerse themselves in a river of human waste. Who's going to do that in a society where people only work in their dream jobs?

There would need to be work programmes, maybe. I'm not getting all New Economic Policy here, but a governing body of some sort would need to organise these municipal areas and get people to carry out these jobs.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

People.

Good job, you passed the test!

[RedMaterialist]

When discussing with some friends, I run into the same road block, and that is "no one will have an incentive to work". Is there any studys that disagree with that argument? ?

If the capitalists don't want to work then they don't eat. The working class is very good at seeing who wants to work and who doesn't.

[Q]

People making this argument must hate their jobs.

And that is kinda the whole point, isn't it? When workers rise to power, they obviously stop doing shitty jobs and divide and/or automate the ones that are socially necessary.

But who the fuck wants to flip burgers?

Of course, humans are lazy. Communism is all about letting people be human, of which laziness is a big part. But besides the lazy part, people will "work" in professions they actually like to do.

People often ask what the difference is between the lower and higher phases of communism. Well, of course the are more factors, but looking purely at work here: as soon as work - being a social institution of alienated labour under capitalism - stops being work, as soon as society no longer needs such a division of labour, as soon as people can do whatever they like to do, what fulfills them as humans, then - and only then - can we talk of communism!

[Let's Get Free]

"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.

Well-being, that is to say, the satisfaction of physical, artistic, and moral needs, has always been the most powerful stimulant to work. And when a hireling produces bare necessities with difficulty, a free worker, who sees ease and luxury increasing for him and for others in proportion to his efforts, spends infinitely far more energy and intelligence, and obtains first-class products in far greater abundance. The one feels riveted to misery, the other hopes for ease and luxury in the future. In this lies the whole secret. Therefore a society aiming at the well-being of all, and at the possibility of all enjoying life in all its manifestations, will supply voluntary work which will be infinitely superior and yield far more than work has produced up till now under the goad of slavery, serfdom, or wagedom."
- Kropotkin

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Cleaning drains and sewers out is always going to be necessary. People flush cleansing wipes down the loo and cause massive blockages that mean someone has to get into a protective suit and immerse themselves in a river of human waste. Who's going to do that in a society where people only work in their dream jobs?

There would need to be work programmes, maybe. I'm not getting all New Economic Policy here, but a governing body of some sort would need to organise these municipal areas and get people to carry out these jobs.

That or people take turns in doing those horrible jobs.

[Let's Get Free]

Also, feeding a few loafers is an insignificant drain on a society’s resources, especially when compared to pampering the voracious capitalists of our society. And losing this tiny amount of resources is far preferable to letting people starve to death. In more extreme cases, if members of such a society were more aggressively parasitic, attempting to monopolize resources or force other people to work for them — in other words, acting like capitalists — they could be ostracized and even expelled from the society.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The sewers will either be cleaned somehow or we just won't have sewers anymore after a time. In either case it will be the community's choice, no one said sewers were a permanent fixture for our species. If there exists a body capable of compelling humans to work, then the revolution hasn't finished yet.

[Poison Frog]

Not all unpleasant jobs can be taken in turns. Expertise is often required. I don't get this idea that all unpleasant jobs will become unnecessary. Sewers will be necessary until such point as they are rendered obsolete by technology. But communism won't coincide with technological advance rendering every unpleasant job obsolete.

I don't see any problem with the idea that people I'll be given more opportunity to fulfill their potential and work in fields they aspire to. Of course. But there will still be jobs people didn't dream of carrying out when they were kids. I don't get the ungrounded Utopianism in saying everyone I'll just do the fun stuff or share the stuff that isn't fun.

[Red Banana]

The example above about a pipe needing repair, as residents aren't getting gas or whatever. You don't have a spontaneous activity, local blokes suddenly knowing how to fix the pipe. You need expertise, otherwise who maintains the pipes generally. All of the engineering roles need to be filled on a permanent basis.

The example was a fallen wire, but nonetheless: of course people won't "suddenly know how to fix the pipe", and I didn't imply that, though I'm sorry if you perceived it that way. A few "local blokes" will know how to fix it, just like how a few of them do now because they received the education and training to fix it. In fact, I'd say in a communal society with free access to education and the abolition of the division of labor, more people would know how to fix it than do now.

[Poison Frog]

The example was a fallen wire, but nonetheless: of course people won't "suddenly know how to fix the pipe", and I didn't imply that, though I'm sorry if you perceived it that way. A few "local blokes" will know how to fix it, just like how a few of them do now because they received the education and training to fix it. In fact, I'd say in a communal society with free access to education and the abolition of the division of labor, more people would know how to fix it than do now.

Didn't mean to dig your post out specifically to be honest, I just meant to use the example to get at something more general. I'm just having trouble aligning some of these ideas with some of the the things I've imagined when visualising the communist society.

[enlightened_ape2112]

Cleaning drains and sewers out is always going to be necessary. People flush cleansing wipes down the loo and cause massive blockages that mean someone has to get into a protective suit and immerse themselves in a river of human waste. Who's going to do that in a society where people only work in their dream jobs?

Although most people would find those jobs unbearable there is a small segment of the population such as myself that would like these type of jobs because of the inherent humor in them. I will gladly go into the sewers. If this wasn't enough I suppose we could set up a system where people would alternate shifts on it. I don't think it would be that big of a problem really.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Good job, you passed the test!

I'm confused :confused:

[Art Vandelay]

Well I am very utopian, but I wouldn't go that far.

At least you admit it.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm confused :confused:

He's too silly to understand that Marxists don't advocate a state in post-capitalist society.

[Luís Henrique]

NSewers will be necessary until such point as they are rendered obsolete by technology. But communism won't coincide with technological advance rendering every unpleasant job obsolete.

No. But it will coincide with the point at which the resolve to make technological advances is driven by human necessities (such as, for instance, not having to go into sewers), instead of by the capital's reproductive needs.

Luís Henrique

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No. But it will coincide with the point at which the resolve to make technological advances is driven by human necessities (such as, for instance, not having to go into sewers), instead of by the capital's reproductive needs.

Luís Henrique

Indeed, so that instead of technological advances giving us the ability to create nuclear bombs that could wipe out half of Scotland or whatever, it gives us the ability to alleviate socially necessary work - automate it, robotise it etc.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

When discussing with some friends, I run into the same road block, and that is "no one will have an incentive to work". Is there any studys that disagree with that argument? ?

I come from the position of working almost 60+ hours a week.

Now, if there was no money or compensation, would I have any incentive to work? Of course not. If I was working less hours and was something along the lines of vet, chef, fashion designer, nurse, interior decorator, etc. then yes, I would and to be perfectly honest, as long as my basic needs (food, shelter, medicine, clothing) were met, I would do any of the above pro bono.

The 'incentive' argument is a joke.

[RadioRaheem84]

All these arguments the capitalists throw at us especially the incentive canard are subtle ways to get us to accept the "natural" aspect of their system. They say ppl are lazy because they know they're uninterested in working for for a wage. When you grill them on it they say "that's life".

[Art Vandelay]

All these arguments the capitalists throw at us especially the incentive canard are subtle ways to get us to accept the "natural" aspect of their system. They say ppl are lazy because they know they're uninterested in working for for a wage. When you grill them on it they say "that's life".

Capitalists love to say that capitalism is 'natural,' just did every ruling class in history did about their respective system.

[Ele'ill]

The example above about a pipe needing repair, as residents aren't getting gas or whatever. You don't have a spontaneous activity, local blokes suddenly knowing how to fix the pipe. You need expertise, otherwise who maintains the pipes generally. All of the engineering roles need to be filled on a permanent basis.

No, residents don't just dive into a poorly dug pit above the pipes with a hammer and screw driver and fix it. They get contacts to those who know how to fix it. I think there will be a lot of people in positions like that, engineering positions, because they genuinely like the work, it fascinates them, and that's right now, that's not even with needs met, shorter work days or maybe even no work days just training and on-call type situations.



But anyway, this question causes me problems too. A general theme in this thread even, seems to be that people will be incentivised to work because they can work in a field they enjoy. Someone posits that perhaps the jobs nobody wants, will prove unnecessary.

Then they do the job they want. If necessary, they search for others who also want to do similar work. You make it sound like a bunch of ragged people in poor health just crash landed on a dinosaur planet and are having to get training from sea turtles and make gas pipes from ferns and river stones.


Cleaning drains and sewers out is always going to be necessary. People flush cleansing wipes down the loo and cause massive blockages that mean someone has to get into a protective suit and immerse themselves in a river of human waste. Who's going to do that in a society where people only work in their dream jobs?

I would, because I know its important and I like helping people.


There would need to be work programmes, maybe. I'm not getting all New Economic Policy here, but a governing body of some sort would need to organise these municipal areas and get people to carry out these jobs.

the people living in the 'municipal areas' would decide on their own what they need and how to get it

[cyu]

So the plantation owner says, "If we don't whip these darkies, mutilate some others, and kill one every once in a while, there will be no incentive to get anything done on this plantation."

How can we argue against that logic eh?

...Anyway, excerpt from http://cjyu.wordpress.com/article/equal-pay-for-unequal-work/

The Demotivation of External Rewards

There are plenty of psychological studies that show “rewarding” work results in people liking the work less, and focusing on only the reward as their goal:

There was an experiment documented in Elliot Aronson’s The Social Animal – some people were divided into two groups. In one group, the people were paid to do a certain activity. In the other group, the people were not paid to do the activity, but instead the organizers emphasized things like how much fun the activity was. At the end of the experiment, the people who were paid were much less likely to have found the activity enjoyable and would only do it again if they were paid again. The others were more likely to do the activity again of their own accord.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm (http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm) also documents how giving someone a “reward” for work ultimately results in the person liking the job less and only going after the reward.

There is also this from http://bookoutlines.pbwiki.com/Predictably-Irrational (http://bookoutlines.pbwiki.com/Predictably-Irrational)


Ariely then ran another experiment. He read from “Leaves of Grass,” and then asked his students the following:

- 1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to pay Ariely $10 for a 10-minute poetry recitation

1/2 of the students were asked if they would be willing to listen to a 10-minute poetry recitation if Ariely paid them $10

The students who were asked if they were willing to pay offered $1 for a short reading, $2 for a medium reading, and $3 for a long reading.

The students who were asked if they’d accept pay demanded $1.30 for a short reading, $2.70 for a medium reading, and $4.80 for a long reading.

[robbo203]

Not all unpleasant jobs can be taken in turns. Expertise is often required. I don't get this idea that all unpleasant jobs will become unnecessary. Sewers will be necessary until such point as they are rendered obsolete by technology. But communism won't coincide with technological advance rendering every unpleasant job obsolete.

I don't see any problem with the idea that people I'll be given more opportunity to fulfill their potential and work in fields they aspire to. Of course. But there will still be jobs people didn't dream of carrying out when they were kids. I don't get the ungrounded Utopianism in saying everyone I'll just do the fun stuff or share the stuff that isn't fun.

Unpleasant jobs will likely attract high status in a communist economy - the respect and esteem of a grateful citizenry . Afterall, all human societies have a some kind of status system . Hunter gatherers accorded high status to the skilled hunter and the environmentally knowlegeable gatherer . In preliterate societies the old were generally regarded with great respect since they contained within their skulls a large database of information accumulated over many years upon which such societies depended . The objectification of knowlege in the shape of writing changed things somewhat in that respect

Status tends to reflect the driving needs of the society in question. In capitalism, status tends to be associated with the accumulation of material wealth, crudely speaking which resonates with the process of capital accumulation. However in a communmist society where all have free and unmediated access to the wealth of society such a criterion of status will obviously be meaningless. The only way in which you can differentiate between individuals in terms of status in a communist society is on the basis of what you give to society and not what you take out of it

The desire to gain the respect and esteem of your fellows to acquire status in their eyes is an important human motivation and it is one that will naturaly be harnessed to overcome the supposed problem of "unpleasant work"

That apart - and leaving aside the possiblity of automation and robotisation (though this too would be a solution) we have to bear in mind that a communist society would be, what in anthrpological terms is called a "moral economy" in which we recognise our mutual interpendence and therefore our moral obligation to one another to do our bit towards making society tick. Here the idea of "generalised reciprocity" comes into play . it is the cornerstone of a communist gift economy.

I suppose there are also other factors to take into account - like what might seem "unpleasant" to you may be quite the opposite to someone else. Some people might like fixing broken sewers even if you dont. One should never underestimate human variability and the fact that we are not all clones. Probably human variability will be even more pronounced in communism than it is today in capitalism with its snobby attitudes to low status manual work

There is also the "ad absurdum" argument which is linked with the "bugger it!" argument. Basically if nobody does the unpleasant work of unblocking the sewers well then conditions are going to be unbearable for those in the vicinity, arent they?. Are thet going to accept that? Obviously not. Somebody's going to be the first to say "bugger it!- if nobodys going to do this Im gonna do it myself". Problem solved. We all have our breaking point and for some it will come sooner than for others. But, then again, I imagine those who dont lend a hand this time round are going to feel suitably guilty the next time it happens that the sewer gets blocked. In a voluntaristic society you cannot force others to work. and this is precisely why communism is most conducive to a sense of responsibility

Moral persuasiuon can thus quite a powerful motivator but it doesnt work very well in an egoistic and competitive capitalist economy in which all have our own "jobs" to do and our own little patches to defend. We are therefore almost forced into a position of disclaiming responsibility for helping others since that is not what we are paid to do as privatised citizens, is it?. Besides, the trade union for sewage workers would not want well meaning busybody volunteers encroaching on the work its members do since that would be threatening the livelihood of those members

[robbo203]

It is interesting that Trotsky here seems to echo precisely the kind of bourgeois sentiments that declare communism to be impracticable because of our alleged "natural inclination" to be lazy

“As a general rule,” Trotsky has said [6], “man strives to avoid labor. The problem before the social organization is just to bring ‘laziness’ within a definite framework, to discipline it, and to pull mankind together ... The only way to attract the labor power necessary for our economic problems is to introduce compulsory labor service ... We can have no way to Socialism except by the authoritative regulation of the economic forces and resources of the country, and the centralized distribution of labor power in harmony with the general State plan. The Labor State considers itself empowered to send every worker to the place where his work is necessary. And not one serious Socialist will begin to deny to the Labor State the right to lay its hand upon the worker who refuses to execute his labor duty.” . ( L. Trotsky, Dictatorship vs. Democracy, New York, 1922, pp. 133-142.)

From http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/marginal.htm

In fairness though he did elsewhere express a quite opposite opinion

[Flying Purple People Eater]

What is 'pure' communism?

[Poison Frog]

No, residents don't just dive into a poorly dug pit above the pipes with a hammer and screw driver and fix it. They get contacts to those who know how to fix it. I think there will be a lot of people in positions like that, engineering positions, because they genuinely like the work, it fascinates them, and that's right now, that's not even with needs met, shorter work days or maybe even no work days just training and on-call type situations.


Then they do the job they want. If necessary, they search for others who also want to do similar work. You make it sound like a bunch of ragged people in poor health just crash landed on a dinosaur planet and are having to get training from sea turtles and make gas pipes from ferns and river stones

I didn't mean to imply all humans will suddenly have no knowledge of anything and thus be incapable of getting anything done. Sorry if my post conveyed that. What I thought I had said, is that not everyone will be able to know enough about everything so that all jobs can be shared out.

I think your post correlates with that idea. Skills and services traded for other skills and services.

I take the above points about one man's unpleasant job is another man's enjoyable job.

[Old Bolshie]

"He who does not work shall not eat"

"An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor"

Lenin in State and Revolution.

"The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."

Stalin, 1936 Soviet Constitution.

"In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”"

Article 12, 1936 Soviet Constitution

In USSR from 1928 to 1956 workers were paid under a piece-rate system in order to stimulate productivity among soviet workers and as a incentive to work. It was one of the reasons behind USSR's industrialization success. It was dropped by Kruschev in 1956 as part of his revisionist de-stalinization policy.

[robbo203]

"He who does not work shall not eat"

"An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor"

Lenin in State and Revolution.

"The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."

Stalin, 1936 Soviet Constitution.

"In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”"

Article 12, 1936 Soviet Constitution


Ironically enough, the expression, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" comes from The Second Epistle of St Paul to the Thessalonians, in the New Testament and is also enshrined in that preeminently godless state capitalist Constitution of the Soviet Union of 1936 that you refer to




In USSR from 1928 to 1956 workers were paid under a piece-rate system in order to stimulate productivity among soviet workers and as a incentive to work. It was one of the reasons behind USSR's industrialization success. It was dropped by Kruschev in 1956 as part of his revisionist de-stalinization policy.

In Capital Marx has this to say of peicework

"piece wages become . . . the most fruitful source of reductions in wages, and of frauds committed by the capitalists."
"the piece wage is the form of wage most appropriate to the capitalist mode of production."

[Old Bolshie]

Ironically enough, the expression, "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" comes from The Second Epistle of St Paul to the Thessalonians, in the New Testament and is also enshrined in that preeminently godless state capitalist Constitution of the Soviet Union of 1936 that you refer to

I saw that in the wikipedia's article from where I transcribed that quote of USSR's article but didn't seem too much important to refer it here.



In Capital Marx has this to say of peicework

"piece wages become . . . the most fruitful source of reductions in wages, and of frauds committed by the capitalists."


There were capitalists in USSR from 1928 to 1956? I don't think so.
"the piece wage is the form of wage most appropriate to the capitalist mode of production."

Since USSR's mode of production was capitalist in its final form I can't really see any contradiction here.

[Art Vandelay]

What is 'pure' communism?

I'm fairly certain its the same as the 'higher' and 'lower' phase of communism, just different terminology.

[cyu]

Unpleasant jobs will likely attract high status in a communist economy - the respect and esteem of a grateful citizenry ... In capitalism, status tends to be associated with the accumulation of material wealth... However in a communmist society where all have free and unmediated access to the wealth of society such a criterion of status will obviously be meaningless.

what might seem "unpleasant" to you may be quite the opposite to someone else... if nobody does the unpleasant work of unblocking the sewers well then conditions are going to be unbearable for those in the vicinity, arent they?. Are thet going to accept that? Obviously not. Somebody's going to be the first to say "bugger it!- if nobodys going to do this Im gonna do it myself".

Great post...

"Sir, it has been brought to my attention that the sewer next to the library is backed up."

"Crap, that's some nasty stuff there. Is anybody gonna fix that thing?"

"No sir, they're all off turning cartwheels and watching American Idol."

"Somebody's gotta fix this soon - I don't see how our town can carry on without it... but you sure as hell won't see me going into that nasty stuff!"

"Me neither sir, but what are we gonna do. People are starting to complain and nobody wants to go down."

"Wait! Word is that Rob and Steve have just emerged and everything is clear!"

"Damn good chaps those two - I wish I could pay them more, but we're communists after all. Haha - see? I made a funny, did you see that?"

"Yes sir, yes yes, but it seems Rob and Steve are picking up the gratitude of some of the local girls."

"No kidding. Those two are heroes to our community while you other men sat around like dainty cowards!"

"Gentlemen, enough of these sexist remarks. I don't see how they add any value to our discussion. But if hunks like Rob and Steve are going to be in sewers in the future, you can bet my sister and I are going to be in there right alongside them!"

[Art Vandelay]

Great post...

"Sir, it has been brought to my attention that the sewer next to the library is backed up."

"Crap, that's some nasty stuff there. Is anybody gonna fix that thing?"

"No sir, they're all off turning cartwheels and watching American Idol."

"Somebody's gotta fix this soon - I don't see how our town can carry on without it... but you sure as hell won't see me going into that nasty stuff!"

"Me neither sir, but what are we gonna do. People are starting to complain and nobody wants to go down."

"Wait! Word is that Rob and Steve have just emerged and everything is clear!"

"Damn good chaps those two - I wish I could pay them more, but we're communists after all. Haha - see? I made a funny, did you see that?"

"Yes sir, yes yes, but it seems Rob and Steve are picking up the gratitude of some of the local girls."

"No kidding. Those two are heroes to our community while you other men sat around like dainty cowards!"

"Gentlemen, enough of these sexist remarks. I don't see how they add any value to our discussion. But if hunks like Rob and Steve are going to be in sewers in the future, you can bet my sister and I are going to be in there right alongside them!"

People can't be paid in a communist society, but you and the post you quoted are spot on.

[Nakidana]

There is also the "ad absurdum" argument which is linked with the "bugger it!" argument. Basically if nobody does the unpleasant work of unblocking the sewers well then conditions are going to be unbearable for those in the vicinity, arent they?. Are thet going to accept that? Obviously not. Somebody's going to be the first to say "bugger it!- if nobodys going to do this Im gonna do it myself". Problem solved. We all have our breaking point and for some it will come sooner than for others. But, then again, I imagine those who dont lend a hand this time round are going to feel suitably guilty the next time it happens that the sewer gets blocked. In a voluntaristic society you cannot force others to work. and this is precisely why communism is most conducive to a sense of responsibility

The "bugger it!" argument seems unrealistic to me, especially if we're talking about a late stage of communism where everything should be working much more efficiently than in capitalism. To take your example, unblocking a sewer requires some heavy machinery which can not be manned unless you've received training. Thus the scenario that somebody would suddenly get enough of the smell, throw down his paper, acquire a sewer vacuum truck, drive it down to his neighborhood and proceed to unblock the local sewer is just not possible.

Surely at this late stage of communism you would have a worldwide "sewage unblocking" organization with trained personnel who would handle any such issue within a short amount of time.

If capitalism can have it fixed within a day or two I don't see why communism should wait around for somebody to reach the "bugger it!" stage.

[robbo203]

The "bugger it!" argument seems unrealistic to me, especially if we're talking about a late stage of communism where everything should be working much more efficiently than in capitalism. To take your example, unblocking a sewer requires some heavy machinery which can not be manned unless you've received training. Thus the scenario that somebody would suddenly get enough of the smell, throw down his paper, acquire a sewer vacuum truck, drive it down to his neighborhood and proceed to unblock the local sewer is just not possible.

Surely at this late stage of communism you would have a worldwide "sewage unblocking" organization with trained personnel who would handle any such issue within a short amount of time.

If capitalism can have it fixed within a day or two I don't see why communism should wait around for somebody to reach the "bugger it!" stage.

No, Im not suggesting that people would have to rely on the "bugger it" syndrome to kick in for all those blocked sewers to be unblocked - simply that it exists as a kind of "fallback position" , so to speak, in the event that the sewers remain unblocked. The main point I really wanted to get across was about the efficacy of social opinion as a factor in human motivation. It matters what others think about us becuase we are, by nature, social animals


Im sure that there will be specific organisations within each locality in a communist society concerned with the maintenance and upgrading of local facilities/utilities such as the sewage system. I imagine there will tend to be a core group of skilled professionals attached to each such organisation as a matter of vocational choice and a larger transient group of occasional volunteers. Though, of course, in a communist society in which all work is of an entirely voluntary and unpaid nature, there will no doubt be a tendency for indivudals to have a much greater variety of jobs than is the case today - variety being the spice of life - this does not preclude a degree of specialisation

Incidentally, Im not an expert on unblocking sewers - although i have done one or two pretty small scale jobs in my line of work as a landscape gardener - Im not too sure about your claim that unblocking a sewer "requires some heavy machinery which can not be manned unless you've received training". Usually in my limited experience it involves one or two blokes in a little "dyno-rod" van turning up with a sensor probe and high pressure water hose to flush the gunk out. Nothing teribly specialised or even ardous about that - or although I stand to be corrected. As a matter oif fact I wouldnt mind having a crack at it myself. Must be great fun! I just cleaned out an old acequia channel yesterday full of accumuated gunk after years of neglect and had the great satisfaction of seeing clean water pass through and out at the other end. Its a bit like sewers but without the shit

Its just that the reference to sewers always some to come when the question of work incentives in a communist society is being discussed. Dont ask me why. Maybe people just have a fetish about shit. Personally I think it is quite an interesting raw material which largely goes to waste. The Chinese use it as "night soil" to fertilise the fields

[Lord Hargreaves]

I don't think we should simply rely on people becoming angels in a communist society.

If people are doing work that they enjoy and can undertake autonomously, then there will definitely be less of an "incentive problem".This shouldn't be underestimated.

But homo sapiens also have excessively overdeveloped brains that make us perpetual children, needing play, leisure and frivolous pursuits. We would go insane if we were left unable to waste some of our time. We couldn't bear working all hours of the day, and we will always find some work unpleasant. Such is our nature.

So we need a happy medium: people able to choose the form of work that suits them and which they find fulfilling. But we will also need rota systems to proportion the less pleasant tasks etc. And ultimately, if a society is fully democratic, people will be more prepared to undertake work which they'd rather not be doing if what they are doing is socially necessary, is the will of their community, and if they feel they have been selected to do it via a fair and transparent process.

[robbo203]

But homo sapiens also have excessively overdeveloped brains that make us perpetual children, needing play, leisure and frivolous pursuits. We would go insane if we were left unable to waste some of our time. We couldn't bear working all hours of the day, and we will always find some work unpleasant. Such is our nature.


Yes, but bear in mind that an awful lot of work that we do today in the formal sector of the capitalist economy would simply not be required in a moneyless economy of free access and volunteer labour. For a start, think of all the jobs associated with handling money in one way of another. Then there's all the jobs that go to support these money-related jobs. And then there's still other jobs - for instance those associated with the military industrial complex, and so on, which will disappear too.


Some commentators, like the late Marshall McLuhan, reckoned that about 95% of the work that we do today under the capitalist money economy is socially unproductive or uselsss. I think that is a bit on the high side. A more reasonable figure would be in the range of 60-70% (check out the American Bureau of Labor Statistics for useful information in this regard - http://www.bls.gov/) But then people forget that we do a lot of work outside of the money economy tiday anyway - for example, in the domestic sector and for charities and mutual aid projects


At any rate, there will be - however you look at it - a significant reduction in the per capita workload of a communist society. And this, I think, significantly changes one's attitude towards work. It really makes a big difference if, for example, you have to work at something you dont normally enjoy doing for only 4 hours as opposed to, say, 8 hours.


So here we have yet another factor that will impact on the question of work incentives in a communist society - that is, the amount of work that needs to be done

[Catma]

I happen to think that humans are naturally lazy. When we have full global democracy, I think most people will vote that we can decrease the amount of work needed as productivity increases, instead of forcing people to find new jobs as capitalism does.

My vision of the end-game is that instead of a military, we have a workforce of volunteers. The size of this workforce will decrease over time as productivity increases. In the early stages it may need to be incentivized in some manner, or in the case of a still existing state, a period of labor might be required of citizens.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

When discussing with some friends, I run into the same road block, and that is "no one will have an incentive to work". Is there any studys that disagree with that argument? ?

A friend I explain anarchism to said the exact same thing. You just have to show him wage slavery, and that money is not an incentive. That works very well here, where most people don't have a salary enough for them to buy anything they want.

[tuwix]

I believe that Marx wanted to abolish money as an incentive only when an automation of production and technological progress will achieve a level when the most of unpleasant jobs are done by machines. And I think it is a condition to eliminate money as the incentive to work. When people can occupy anything that is pleasant, they can call it work.
I think we will never achieve such level but it is possible to achieve a level when the 99% of unpleasant works will be done by machines. And the rest could be done by volunteers who can work without money for the good of world society.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I'm fairly certain its the same as the 'higher' and 'lower' phase of communism, just different terminology.

Ah, I see. I thought it was referring to the weird liberal idea of a 'halfway point' between communism and capitalism.

[Traveller]

Some study suggest that labour is already a means of sustance in some developed society. (Partially,at least.)

http : // en.wikipedia . org/ wiki / Mincome

[Traveller]

In most of the precapitalist societies large slices of economic activity was voluntary.(Well,or at least there was no forceful coercion or renumeration)

[Geiseric]

It is interesting that Trotsky here seems to echo precisely the kind of bourgeois sentiments that declare communism to be impracticable because of our alleged "natural inclination" to be lazy

“As a general rule,” Trotsky has said [6], “man strives to avoid labor. The problem before the social organization is just to bring ‘laziness’ within a definite framework, to discipline it, and to pull mankind together ... The only way to attract the labor power necessary for our economic problems is to introduce compulsory labor service ... We can have no way to Socialism except by the authoritative regulation of the economic forces and resources of the country, and the centralized distribution of labor power in harmony with the general State plan. The Labor State considers itself empowered to send every worker to the place where his work is necessary. And not one serious Socialist will begin to deny to the Labor State the right to lay its hand upon the worker who refuses to execute his labor duty.” . ( L. Trotsky, Dictatorship vs. Democracy, New York, 1922, pp. 133-142.)

From http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1939/marginal.htm

In fairness though he did elsewhere express a quite opposite opinion

"He who does not work will not eat," or something around those lines were in the CM, I don't see why this is controversial.

[Luisrah]

Great post...

"Sir, it has been brought to my attention that the sewer next to the library is backed up."

"Crap, that's some nasty stuff there. Is anybody gonna fix that thing?"

"No sir, they're all off turning cartwheels and watching American Idol."

"Somebody's gotta fix this soon - I don't see how our town can carry on without it... but you sure as hell won't see me going into that nasty stuff!"

"Me neither sir, but what are we gonna do. People are starting to complain and nobody wants to go down."

"Wait! Word is that Rob and Steve have just emerged and everything is clear!"

"Damn good chaps those two - I wish I could pay them more, but we're communists after all. Haha - see? I made a funny, did you see that?"

"Yes sir, yes yes, but it seems Rob and Steve are picking up the gratitude of some of the local girls."

"No kidding. Those two are heroes to our community while you other men sat around like dainty cowards!"

"Gentlemen, enough of these sexist remarks. I don't see how they add any value to our discussion. But if hunks like Rob and Steve are going to be in sewers in the future, you can bet my sister and I are going to be in there right alongside them!"

Couldn't resist saying that I have a difficult time imagining girls start being interested in a certain man because he didn't mind/was brave enough to go into the sewers and dive in human dejects lol

Anyway, the post actually makes sense. Some people actually don't mind doing that kind of work, and even if they do, a hero will always show up when things start to go wrong.

[Brutus]

He who does not work, does not eat

[Traveller]

Couldn't resist saying that I have a difficult time imagining girls start being interested in a certain man because he didn't mind/was brave enough to go into the sewers and dive in human dejects lol

Anyway, the post actually makes sense. Some people actually don't mind doing that kind of work, and even if they do, a hero will always show up when things start to go wrong.

What you are talking about is prestige,which determinded by the whole society,rather than by a small circle of people. The problem is that we cant wait for heroes forever. Society somehow must organize itself effectivly,somehow it must be able to began to solve problems immadeatily. So I think we sould approach this from a higher level,and we'll find that actually not the individual who holds the great prestige,but the whole social group which he/or she belings to.If someone will repair a sewer,it it will be the whole Sewer Maintainer Syndicate will that will find important to miantain its status amongst the other social groups.And social groups always try to maintain adventegous place in society.

And what is important here is not the dirty sewers,but way how others consider it.Just compare a miner and a street sweeper.

[Firebrand]

The biggest argument for humans not needing a wage to work ins housework.
Housework is menial, miserable hard work that no-one in their right mind wants to do and yet it still gets done because people feel ashamed if their house is too much of a mess. There is no financial incentive and yet the work is nearly always done to at least a tolerable standard. Sometimes to an extremely high standard.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't mind having a mining job if I had decent tools and safety equipment and was in a partnership of equals with my fellow mine workers. Even cleaning the streets wouldn't be so bad if I could learn to use one of those little trucks with the floor brushes.

Personally, it seems to me that the kind of work which people tend to bring up as examples of jobs no-one supposedly wants to do, are the jobs where it's really easy to see the benefit to society, or which could be improved greatly through better equipment and working conditions.

Although I'm pretty sure that if everyone was given the opportunity to work, and production was based around meeting needs and desires rather than chasing profits, then most people could get away with working only eight hours a week. Only incorrigible workaholics need work for longer.

[Ele'ill]

He who does not work, does not eat

he who does not eat makes full time work expropriating supply shipments

[cyu]

There was a discussion elsewhere about mining and safety. What we have in a capitalist economy is one of competition. If your company can't produce more for less, then your company goes bankrupt and is either replaced by a more exploitive mining company, or by companies that are more exploitive of other sectors of labor or the environment. So even if mining companies were run by "moral" CEOs, or even if they were taken over and run democratically by their employees, they are still forced to compete with other companies - and if they don't cut costs (like skimp on safety), they go bankrupt and everyone falls into poverty.

Now if all energy companies were taken over by their employees, we'd have some backstop to just how terrible conditions can get. Nobody truly wants to vote himself a deathly job. However, if they are still forced to compete in a capitalist-like market, they will continue to suffer.

The alternative is cooperation among energy companies - instead of one company that does good and driving others into poverty, cooperation means safety advancements and other benefits are shared by all mine workers, improving all their lives. In essence, this basically becomes a monopoly - a traditional monopoly benefits by making decisions that benefit everyone in the monopoly - the same applies here. The difference from capitalist monopoly is that under capitalism, monopolies are still competing with customers for money - if the monopoloy is to profit, then consumers must suffer. Cooperative monopolies just expand the circle of cooperation to everyone in society - thus instead of monopolies making consumers suffer, they work together with the rest of society to benefit all within the cooperative circle.

[Oswy]

When discussing with some friends, I run into the same road block, and that is "no one will have an incentive to work". Is there any studys that disagree with that argument? ?

It may not be that obvious in the kind of societies we're stuck in but doing socially useful labour is a human need - it's actually inequitable forms of society, most obviously capitalism, which demotivate people from pursuing work. People who drop out or show little interest in working for the capitalist class are labelled 'lazy' but this is to treat capitalism normatively. If you're looking for papers then you should probably start with anthropology and the observation that for almost all of human history (i.e. until very recently) social arrangements have valued everyone's labour as important to the collective. Capitalism, by comparison, atomises us and then exploits (or alienates) us in labour.

[Red Deck Wins]

I don't know too much about the theories behind the incentive-to-work as used by either capitalists or Marxists. All I know is that neither capitalism or Marxism has been around forever and people were working well before the development of either system. Therefor, the incentive to work must be intrinsic to human nature. My own thinking is that, barring a few lazy individuals who are exceptions to the rule, all people have a desire to work in order to feel individually good about contributing to their collective. Capitalist wage labor if anything creates a disincentive to work because you know damn well you're not getting paid the full value of your labor and - depending on what industry you are working in - that which you are producing might not have any value to society at all. It might even be detrimental to society. I agree with the posters above that need and want are the best incentives to work and have always been around. Capitalism just skews this reality and turns profit into a need and instills unnecessary want into the consumer.

At least that's the best understanding I have based off relatively little readings of Marx. How's that for a good first post outside the Introductions forum?

[cyu]

This probably belongs in Economics, Ongoing Struggles, or something, but it reminded me of this thread.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2013-01-25/from-occupation-to-co-operation/

the Austin Co-op Think Tank is hosting the Austin Cooperative Summit, a conference focused on developing co-ops in Central Texas. If there isn't a job for you, you can create a worker co-op and create a job – take back your voice.

The co-op is an economic enterprise democratically run by members or employees. Members own and govern the co-op. They are people who shop at the co-op or people who work there. The wealth either goes to people that work there, or it's reinvested in the community or the co-op, or given to the members.

Austin's first housing co-ops were formed during the Depression.

Like the post-Occupy present, the Seventies were a time of social upheaval and questioning established systems. "You typically see spikes in cooperative activity and in labor activity around periods of crises. People are recognizing that business as usual is not working and are more open to what an alternative might look like."

the success of the Mondragon cooperatives in the Basque region of Spain and a network of co-ops in the Emilia Romagna region of northern Italy. In both places, there are support organizations whose primary purpose is to develop cooperatives. "That's the kind of infrastructure we need to think about building here in Austin and Texas, if we're serious about taking things to scale and moving them forward for the long term"

the Think Tank developed a mentorship program that paired co-op newbies with seasoned professionals. much of the value of the Think Tank has been in building relationships among people in different co-ops. Wheatsville lent its boardroom to College Houses for a training program, and the Inter-Cooperative Council financed a fire sprinkler system in its older houses through University Federal Credit Union. Wheatsville sells Red Rabbit doughnuts; Black Star uses Red Rabbit bread. The ICC housing co-ops have been Wheatsville's biggest customers for years.

"I think we're underambitious in this country" He points to the International Co-operative Alliance's goal to make co-ops the fastest-growing business model by 2020.

He describes the current scene as a "golden age" for Austin, akin to the Seventies. "In both instances there was a social system that was open-ended and allowed people to become involved easily. If you look at who's involved in the Think Tank, it's not all the managers or staff or presidents of the board – it's whoever's interested."

Typically, different types of co-ops operate in their silos and don't communicate much with one another. we're beginning that conversation and trying to figure out where we can lock arms and think about the future together.

[Comrade #138672]

I was talking to someone who said he wanted to have an incentive to work and that Communism couldn't provide it.

"Why should I get the same as everyone else? If I want to work 60 hours per week, I should be able to do so and be rewarded proportionally. Why should I get the same as the lazy people? I want to drive around in an expensive car. I should be able to do so!"

What would be the 'proper' response? And yes, he claims to work 60 hours every week.

I responded with: "Well, if you really work that hard and what you're doing is beneficial for everyone, I'm sure you can have a little 'extra' reward."

[Buttress]

I was talking to someone who said he wanted to have an incentive to work and that Communism couldn't provide it.

"Why should I get the same as everyone else? If I want to work 60 hours per week, I should be able to do so and be rewarded proportionally. Why should I get the same as the lazy people? I want to drive around in an expensive car. I should be able to do so!"

What would be the 'proper' response? And yes, he claims to work 60 hours every week.

I responded with: "Well, if you really work that hard and what you're doing is beneficial for everyone, I'm sure you can have a little 'extra' reward."

I think there is such a thing as over-working yourself. If there is no need for a singular person to do 60 hours of work a week, why are they doing it? Because they enjoy the work? Then that is their "reward". If they don't enjoy the work, if they are over-worked, get more people to help out. Then the workaholic can stop complaining.

[Comrade #138672]

I think there is such a thing as over-working yourself. If there is no need for a singular person to do 60 hours of work a week, why are they doing it? Because they enjoy the work? Then that is their "reward". If they don't enjoy the work, if they are over-worked, get more people to help out. Then the workaholic can stop complaining.I don't think he enjoys it. He just wants more money, so he overworks himself. It almost seems as if he just wants more 'stuff' than everybody else. He says he wants an expensive car, but what if everybody would have one? Then I'm not even sure if it would be enough for him.

He's proud that he is overworking himself. People who are not willing to do that, he says, are just lazy and don't deserve anything.

[Buttress]

He's proud that he is overworking himself. People who are not willing to do that, he says, are just lazy and don't deserve anything.

And there you have it. His incentive for overworking himself in socialism is his desire of overworking himself.

Workaholics will probably remain workerholics in socialism. No biggie.

[Luisrah]

I don't think he enjoys it. He just wants more money, so he overworks himself. It almost seems as if he just wants more 'stuff' than everybody else. He says he wants an expensive car, but what if everybody would have one? Then I'm not even sure if it would be enough for him.

He's proud that he is overworking himself. People who are not willing to do that, he says, are just lazy and don't deserve anything.

This kind of people probably won't be "happy" with the regime. But what happens today is that if you work 60 hours a week, if you're not lucky, you don't get an expensive car.
The objective is not getting everyone an expensive car, it's getting everyone means of transportation. It's not getting everyone luxurious houses, it's getting everyone comfortable and enjoyable houses.

Of course richness in the world is poorly distributed and if it was done well, we could all have good living conditions, but the first objetive might be getting everyone a home, food, health, education and everything else. The money to buy and maintain an expensive car could feed quite a lot of people...

If this person doesn't understand that giving everyone and enjoyable life is more important than his luxury than maybe he hasn't been much affected/hasn't seen the poverty around him and doesn't understand it's causes.

[cyu]

maybe he hasn't been much affected/hasn't seen the poverty around him and doesn't understand it's causes.

His mind has been buried in Superbowl commercials - the one source of brainwashing more powerful than churches in America ;)