Question about labour in a socialist country

[InSovietRussia]

One of the most popular complaints about socialism is that the average worker has no reason to do the best job he can since he has no hope of advancing in society. What do socialists believe motivates the worker?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Under capitalism the motivation to work for the vast majority is not to starve or have a miserable life. Under communism the motivation to work for the vast majority is not to starve or have a miserable life.

What's the difference? In capitalism this is accomplished through the control of the ways "not to starve" by the capitalist class who then get to call the shots in the conditions and terms of labor. In communism this would be accomplished through mutual cooperation where everyone working on a common project would call the shots together: no one would have power over other people to the point where they could force them to work for them as in capitalism, feudalism, slave societies etc.

[ckaihatsu]

One of the most popular complaints about socialism is that the average worker has no reason to do the best job he can since he has no hope of advancing in society. What do socialists believe motivates the worker?


Since social relations would be utterly different -- a paradigm shift -- we need to compare the differing *contexts* of commodity production vs. that of collective production.

Under capitalism the economics is a closed system overall, constrained by the "ceiling" of the market mechanism. (In capitalism's early years the global economy was still industrializing and expanding, so the market mechanism could have been likened to an "engine", but no more *these* days since economic growth is artificially capped by its inherent contradictions.)

Under capitalism's closed system every worker is essentially on a social hierarchy, utterly dispossessed of official political power, and only ranking as high as monetary savings accumulated, if any. Contrast this reality to that of socialism in which each liberated laborer would have a global-proportionate share of political power, *and* would not be hindered from taking on roles of active participation over societal planning (politics) and broad co-coordination of liberated labor.

This context would be a civilization that is mostly flat-level and top-open, with the collectivized humanity co-determining its own progress and future.

[cyu]

Was just looking for a place to post http://whatsoncarstensmind.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/painting-fences-and-drawing-for-rewards.html and found this thread...


Work consists of whatever a body is OBLIGED to do, Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do. There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line, in the summer, because the privilege costs them considerable money; but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work and then they would resign. rewards can perform a weird sort of behavioral alchemy: They can turn play into work. by diminishing intrinsic motivation, they can send performance, creativity, and even upstanding behavior toppling like dominoes.

first was the "expected-award" group. Everyone in this group was shown a certificate that they would receive if they decided to draw. The second group was the "unexpected-award" group. These children were not shown any certificates before they started drawing, but received one at the end. And the last group was neither shown any certificates, nor did they get one if they chose to draw as well.

Those who had previously been in the "unexpected-award" and the "no-award" groups drew with as much enthusiasm as before, but those who had been in the "expected-award" group showed a lot less interest and spent much less time drawing. For them play had been turned into work.

"If-then" rewards require people to forfeit some of their autonomy. Like the gentlemen driving carriages for money instead of fun, they're no longer fully controlling their lives. And that can spring a hole in the bottom of their motivational bucket, draining an activity of its enjoyment.

[Drosophila]

There is no "work" in communism as we understand it. We'll do what we want and we'll work on what we want to work on.

[InSovietRussia]

In response to these answers, I have a new question. It seems to me that the idea of turning work into play could work in many scenarios, but I'm having trouble seeing it in others. The are some jobs in the world that no one wants to do, for example shoveling manure or cleaning public restroom stalls. I, for one, would not want to do these jobs no matter what. In a capitalist society people have to do this because if they don't they will starve. How would these more disgusting/bad jobs be accomplished in a socialist society?

[Theophys]

In response to these answers, I have a new question. It seems to me that the idea of turning work into play could work in many scenarios, but I'm having trouble seeing it in others. The are some jobs in the world that no one wants to do, for example shoveling manure or cleaning public restroom stalls. I, for one, would not want to do these jobs no matter what. In a capitalist society people have to do this because if they don't they will starve. How would these more disgusting/bad jobs be accomplished in a socialist society?

They won't be turned into play. They would have an increased pay, bonuses, insurances, benefits, etc.

The assertions of turning work into play are ridiculous Utopian nonsense. Work can never become play. Sewage maintenance and such dirty and risky labor must be done by someone and they will not think of it as "play". Oh and no, do not even bother speaking of "automation", until we obtain such methods of automation then and only then can you speak of automation without resorting to a cop-out.

Rota-based labor? That would send in a bunch of rabble that have little understanding of anything. You need skilled labor that depend on years of experience and accumulated knowledge in order to properly, effectively, and efficiently manage or run society's infrastructure or any other demanding process of labor. That will never work properly.


One of the most popular complaints about socialism is that the average worker has no reason to do the best job he can since he has no hope of advancing in society. What do socialists believe motivates the worker?

That complaint is based on false foundations and assumption, as always. The average worker under Socialism has many reasons to do his best. That is a commonly held misconception concerning Leftist economics. There is no such thing as equal wages. A scientist in the USSR was paid more than a janitor. The same applies to Cuba where doctors are paid more than a janitor. They do not get the same reward for outstanding achievements. There even existed a reward system in the USSR, numerous ones in fact, ranging from the Stakhanovite movement, material bonuses, pay bonuses, reputational bonuses, merit, pride, and even promotions. This misconception arises from the lack of understand of Socialism where these individuals think that everyone is paid the same, everyone is the same, and everyone shares everything. That is nothing more than nonsense.

Oh and by the way, people actually volunteered on Saturdays and Sundays (subbotnik and voskresnik) in the USSR to work for free and for no pay purely to advance their society. Google Subbotnik because I cannot post links yet.

That's how "unmotivated" and without incentives they were. They volunteered to work for free in order to advance their society.

Moreover, no, we don't take away incentives, we give incentives. There is absolutely no incentive to work when the products of your labor are being appropriated by someone else, not for society, not for you, but for his own personal and private interests. There is absolutely no incentive here to produce besides the fact that if you do not surrender your products and labor to this system of wage-labor, you are essentially forced to starve to death. That's why welfare systems were introduced, to ameliorate starvation and poverty while at the same time inhibiting any hints of revolution. There is no such thing as "work smarter, not harder" as there is no such thing to be defined as "smart work" to put as a guideline. It's extremely vague and ineffective. There is no means by which we can measure exactly how hard or smart someone works, especially under Capitalism. An individual could be working "smarter" rather than "harder" and yet still not get promoted, have a wage increase, or even still be forced to work two jobs at the same time. Smart or hard work do not guarantee advancement for the individual in question.

What motivates workers is pay according to contribution, lack of exploitation for private and personal interests, the ability to have a say in their work, the services provided by the state, the honor and fame from overachieving as in the case of the Stakhanovites in the USSR, the monetary and material rewards from overachieving, and the fact that work is necessary in order to obtain money. And yes, the last one differs from the Capitalist work-or-starvation in that Capitalism forces an individual to work even when he is unable to work or when work is unavailable or risk starvation/poverty, whilst Socialism and Communism only require that individuals work when they are capable or work is available.

[InSovietRussia]

Excerpt from the Wiki article on subbotnik,
The subbotnik was organised by Bolshevik party members, and it was stated in the Resolution of the General Council of Communists of the Subraion of the Moscow-Kazan Railway and Their Adherents that "the communists and their supporters again must spur themselves on and extract from their time off still another hour of work, i.e. they must increase their working day by an hour, add it up and on Saturday devote six hours at a stretch to physical labour, thereby producing immediately a real value. Considering that communists should not spare their health and lives for the victory of the revolution, the work is conducted without pay."[2]
This sounds to me less like volunteer work and more like working for free every Saturday.

[Theophys]

Excerpt from the Wiki article on subbotnik,
The subbotnik was organised by Bolshevik party members, and it was stated in the Resolution of the General Council of Communists of the Subraion of the Moscow-Kazan Railway and Their Adherents that "the communists and their supporters again must spur themselves on and extract from their time off still another hour of work, i.e. they must increase their working day by an hour, add it up and on Saturday devote six hours at a stretch to physical labour, thereby producing immediately a real value. Considering that communists should not spare their health and lives for the victory of the revolution, the work is conducted without pay."[2]
This sounds to me less like volunteer work and more like working for free every Saturday.
It's voluntary work, they were not forced to attend. The voluntary work was also for free. The Bolsheviks merely encouraged or "spurred" workers to take part in these "events" as should naturally be the case.

As Trotsky explained, "In spite of political tortures, physical sufferings and horrors, the laboring masses are infinitely distant from political decomposition, from moral collapse, or from apathy. Thanks to a regime which, though it has inflicted great hardships upon them, has given their life a purpose and a high goal, they preserve an extraordinary moral stubbornness and ability unexampled in history, and concentrate their attention and will on collective problems. Today, in all branches of industry, there is going on an energetic struggle for the establishment of strict labor discipline, and for the increase of the productivity of labor. The party organizations, the trade unions, the factory and workshop administrative committees, rival one another in this respect, with the undivided support of the public opinion of the working class as a whole. Factory after factory willingly, by resolution at its general meeting, increases its working day. Petrograd and Moscow set the example, and the provinces emulate Petrograd. Communist Saturdays and Sundays – that is to say, voluntary and unpaid work in hours appointed for rest – spread ever wider and wider, drawing into their reach many, many hundreds of thousands of working men and women. The industry and productivity of labor at the Communist Saturdays and Sundays, according to the report of experts and the evidence of figures, is of a remarkably high standard.

Voluntary mobilizations for labor problems in the party and in the Young Communist League are carried out with just as much enthusiasm as hitherto for military tasks. Voluntarism supplements and gives life to universal labor service. The Committees for universal labor service recently set up have spread all over the country. The attraction of the population to work on a mass scale (clearing snow from the roads, repairing railway lines, cutting timber, chopping and bringing up of wood to the, towns, the simplest building operations, the cutting of slate and of peat) become more and more widespread and organized every day. The ever increasing employment of military formations on the labor front would be quite impossible in the absence of elevated enthusiasm for labor."

[Craig_J]

Here's my post from another thread:

Under a communist system the ideal situation is that you get someone who wants to work for the betterment of society. You would want to become a doctor as you feel your helping people. Some would say this is ridiculous but the point is quite a few NHS nurses in the UK are paid next to nothing and do a very difficult job as well. Yet if money was the only motivation we'd all be dieing and there'd be no nurses around. The fact is some people have spent their whole life wanting to be a nurse for the sake of being a nurse. Same with teachers, some just want to teach despite long hours.

The motivation would be knowing your helping out society and that every task you peform is helping not just you but everyone around you, not only making you happy in the sense of fufiling a role but also by knowing community life will imrpove therefore creating a better atmosphere for you to live in.

Also, humans naturally need to work. Some people I grant you would happily not work but these people usually end up feeling bored of everything all the time or with depression without realising why. If you don't do anything at all and just sit inside absorbing TV you'll soon become very bored. But humans naturally need fulfiling work.

The key word is FULFILLING as the current capitalist concept of work is not fulfilling in the vast majority of cases, it's doing simple dehumanising work which keeps you obedeint and keeps back your liberation as a human being. Your just a cog in a machine to produce profit for the bourgeoisie and in return you get your wage slip where you can enjoy your weekend. A truly fulfilling idea of work would see your naturally creative human mind liberated to make things yourself or spend time actually studying areas that interest you for the better ment of humans.

Having this fulfiling work would greatly motivate all those who don't want to work these days because of the mundane idea of scanning the same things day in day out or putting the same things on the same objects on a production line day in day out.

And besides, under a communist or anarcho-collectivist society if you were able to peform certain roles but were not doing so I don't think the community would carry on happily giving you all you need and want, they'd probably start to push you into doing something as they'd realise that you're getting a free ride and they would help you find something to do. And having a whole community being upset with you wouldn't be a very easy thing for any human being to take.

There's plenty of reasons to work under communism.

[InSovietRussia]

Here's my post from another thread:

Under a communist system the ideal situation is that you get someone who wants to work for the betterment of society. You would want to become a doctor as you feel your helping people. Some would say this is ridiculous but the point is quite a few NHS nurses in the UK are paid next to nothing and do a very difficult job as well. Yet if money was the only motivation we'd all be dieing and there'd be no nurses around. The fact is some people have spent their whole life wanting to be a nurse for the sake of being a nurse. Same with teachers, some just want to teach despite long hours.

The motivation would be knowing your helping out society and that every task you peform is helping not just you but everyone around you, not only making you happy in the sense of fufiling a role but also by knowing community life will imrpove therefore creating a better atmosphere for you to live in.

Also, humans naturally need to work. Some people I grant you would happily not work but these people usually end up feeling bored of everything all the time or with depression without realising why. If you don't do anything at all and just sit inside absorbing TV you'll soon become very bored. But humans naturally need fulfiling work.

The key word is FULFILLING as the current capitalist concept of work is not fulfilling in the vast majority of cases, it's doing simple dehumanising work which keeps you obedeint and keeps back your liberation as a human being. Your just a cog in a machine to produce profit for the bourgeoisie and in return you get your wage slip where you can enjoy your weekend. A truly fulfilling idea of work would see your naturally creative human mind liberated to make things yourself or spend time actually studying areas that interest you for the better ment of humans.

Having this fulfiling work would greatly motivate all those who don't want to work these days because of the mundane idea of scanning the same things day in day out or putting the same things on the same objects on a production line day in day out.

And besides, under a communist or anarcho-collectivist society if you were able to peform certain roles but were not doing so I don't think the community would carry on happily giving you all you need and want, they'd probably start to push you into doing something as they'd realise that you're getting a free ride and they would help you find something to do. And having a whole community being upset with you wouldn't be a very easy thing for any human being to take.

There's plenty of reasons to work under communism.

This may be true for some jobs, but I have never heard a child say that they want to become a janitor or a coal miner when they grow up. Most people wouldn't feel fulfilled by these jobs.

[WelcomeToTheParty]

This may be true for some jobs, but I have never heard a child say that they want to become a janitor or a coal miner when they grow up. Most people wouldn't feel fulfilled by these jobs.

So in a socialist system research could be directed towards finding ways to do those tasks in more appealing ways, whereas now the only incentive to innovate is profit.

Also, I know quite a few janitors who quite enjoy their jobs so it's best not to make blanket statements about human nature like that.

[ckaihatsu]

So in a socialist system research could be directed towards finding ways to do those tasks in more appealing ways, whereas now the only incentive to innovate is profit.


Yes, and/or automate such banal roles altogether.





Also, I know quite a few janitors who quite enjoy their jobs so it's best not to make blanket statements about human nature like that.


I'll have to argue here that the prevailing social relations -- that of a liberated, post-capitalist society -- would have an interest-in-common to *prevent* gruntwork-type jobs from being staffed. The implications of having *anyone* do such work, even if they themselves don't mind doing it, would be too disruptive to the body politic to allow. In other words the politics and decision-making behind justifying such a work role for anyone would be more trouble than it would be worth -- such a society would much sooner opt for a volunteer force (or whatever) to rapidly *automate* such gruntwork so that no unwieldy decisions *have* to be made, for anyone, on *any* basis.

[Craig_J]

This may be true for some jobs, but I have never heard a child say that they want to become a janitor or a coal miner when they grow up. Most people wouldn't feel fulfilled by these jobs.

Well I feel that like under capitalism not everyone will be able to get the jobs which they want to do. Some people may wish to become doctors but may look at the ammount of knowledge require and decide not to. Some people may decide that instead of undertaking a job that require's a lot of hard work that being a janitor would be more suited to them.

Even if that isn't the case, and we end up with lots of doctors why would we need a janitor in say for example a hospital? What's to stop a rotation system being put in place where X doctor cleans for this ammount of hours or on this particlar day and then X doctor see's to patients for this ammount of hours or on this particular day whilst doctor Y rotates round and does the cleaning?

The capitalist system appoints specific people to do janitoring and things like that as this way they don't have to pay doctors the high wage they earn for a rotation turn in cleaning. Why would any capitalist want to do that when they can get a specific person to do it who's more willing to take a smaller wage? This safes the capitalist more money and ensures they maximise their profit.

[Sudsy]

In socialism what you produce and what you contribute is what you're entitled to!

[InSovietRussia]

So in a socialist system research could be directed towards finding ways to do those tasks in more appealing ways, whereas now the only incentive to innovate is profit.

Also, I know quite a few janitors who quite enjoy their jobs so it's best not to make blanket statements about human nature like that.

You are right about making blanket statements, I see that now. I'm not saying that you can't enjoy a job like that, but it may not be one of those jobs like a doctor or a scientist that many people actively pursue.

[ckaihatsu]

In socialism what you produce and what you contribute is what you're entitled to!


No, this is standard cynical moralism -- for a material society that has the capacity to *easily* overproduce, such tit-for-tat exchange-based thinking no longer makes any sense. (According to this logic the person who throws the main power switch to start up a factory's automated assembly line, *and* keeps their hand there, would be entitled to the *most* production from that production run -- which is absurd, of course.)

I've found that most comrades -- unfortunately -- do not address this core issue of how a liberated mass production could potentially feasibly be controlled and apportioned. Many wind up ignoring mass (industrial) production altogether, leaving the question unaddressed. Others feel that localism or tribalism would somehow suffice for this matter, while ignoring the scales of coordination over many supply lines that is necessary for modern mass production.

Still others hesitate to account for variations in the types of work roles that would be used, leaving lesser-intensive types of work to be considered on-par with more-difficult roles.

So basically it's about resolving liberated-labor 'supply' with consumer 'demand', with material availability. History has shown us the varieties of catastrophic situations that can result if any one of these three factors is out-of-balance with the other two.