Why is this argument wrong?

[Skyhilist]

I was talking to a friend at school today. He was talking about how no one would do their part under communism because supposedly the end result of work wouldn't be enough to motivate people towards work. I provided the example of anarchist Catalonia, where agricultural production increased significantly with labor acting as a cooperative force.

He offered a much more anecdotal counter-example. He mentioned something that a professor at Yale did. Supposedly the students wanted to "prove that communism would work" to the professor, so he told them that he would do their grades "like in communism": the average grade would be grade that the class got. Supposedly, over time the average grade started at B and then went down sharply to a D, meaning everyone nearly failed. This example is used to justify the assertion that workers would slack off under communism and that they wouldn't produce enough over time to sustain everyone, meaning everyone would suffer.

I have my own ideas on why this example of grading would not correlate with communism, however I feel that my response could be stronger. In what ways do you guys think the argument laid out above by my friend is wrong/flawed?

[Creative Destruction]

Because chain emails and folk Facebook stories are not adequate replacements for evidence. You also can't condense economic relations into a dumb argument about a dickheaded professor.

To that specific example, there are models of equitable class relations in schoolrooms. In some countries, high performing students are socially obliged to help low performing students. There isn't segregation of "gifted and talented" students and all others. This ensures that low performing students aren't, as it were, left behind. And it works. Finland uses this model and they're the consistently top rated school system in the world.

[Per Levy]

He offered a much more anecdotal counter-example. He mentioned something that a professor at Yale did

ah ja, the "professor/students in a college want to prove something" anecdote story. havnt heard those a million time.


I provided the example of anarchist Catalonia, where agricultural production increased significantly with labor acting as a cooperative force.

He offered a much more anecdotal counter-example.

so you give him a factual prove while he gives you an "anecdote" of a made up story he got from the internet?


Supposedly the students wanted to "prove that communism would work" to the professor, so he told them that he would do their grades "like in communism":

so let me get this straight, in this(made up) story the students want to prove that communism can work but the prof is doing the proveing for them? what was the way the students wanted to prove that communism can work? that would be interesting to know.

you might want something more substantial but why do you want to disprove fantasy story?

[argeiphontes]

I'm sure other people will have something better to say, but...


no one would do their part under communism because supposedly the end result of work wouldn't be enough to motivate people towards work. I provided the example of anarchist Catalonia, where agricultural production increased significantly with labor acting as a cooperative force.

What are people motivated by in capitalism? The motivations of survival and personal property would still hold, IMO. He may be assuming the old staw man that communism only motivates "ethically" or "altruistically" which isn't true. He's holding the Spectre of Less over your head.

When I wanted to start a worker coop a couple of years ago, one of my arguments for its greater efficiency was that individual motivation would be greater because there is a difference between working for yourself and working to enrich others in a hierarchical, totalitarian structure like a corporation. Incentives would be felt more on a personal level.



do their grades "like in communism": the average grade would be grade that the class got. Supposedly, over time the average grade started at B and then went down sharply to a D, meaning everyone nearly failed. This example is used to justify the assertion that workers would slack off under communism and that they wouldn't produce enough over time to sustain everyone, meaning everyone would suffer.


I would say that this is more like forced collectivization with a production quota to be siphoned off. The problem could be with the idea of grades themselves. Maybe grades themselves are not incentive enough; they're not anything "real" or necessary for the students except to do well in college. And there aren't many companies that care about grades as much as they do about just having the (or 'a') degree. So, twisting it around, maybe it just showed that nobody likes to work for "grades" in an artificial structure.

Why does other group work like group projects work so well, then? Or capitalist businesses moving toward more egalitarian, team-oriented structures? There must be some benefit or they wouldn't do it.

[Zealot]

Marx and Engels answered these clowns in the 1840s:

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital."

- Communist Manifesto, Ch. 2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)

[Skyhilist]

So basically: if profit is needed to motivate work then the working class wouldn't be working more to earn less while the bourgeois earn more and work less, and also it's a dumb made up story, and it oversimplifies communism?

That makes sense of course. The things I was thinking of were that even if the story was true, it would still not be a good example of what communism would be like because there would be no organizational structures to ensure that things went smoothly, and also because it wouldn't take into consideration the idea of confederalism for working class people who could choose to live in different regions if they didn't like the work in one region. Also, obviously getting a grade isn't as important to people as getting important necessities in life (which I think someone mentioned).

Is it even worth arguing with this person?

[cyu]

What is the point of school? Is it to learn or to get good grades? If you go to school to learn, then you try to learn regardless of what grades you get. If you go to school in order to get good grades so that you can prove to a capitalist that you deserve to be his wage slave, then you're not there to learn, you're there for a piece of paper.

[Eleutheromaniac]

Is it even worth arguing with this person?

Maybe not on a respectable intellectual standpoint at the moment. But who knows? If they aren't stubborn, maybe this person is willing to learn what communism actually means.

[ChrisK]

First of all, this was not a scientific study. No variables were accounted for, such as difficulty of course material or student dropouts.

Second, there is no good reason to assume that the student body is representative of all people.

Third, anecdotal evidence is trumped by empirical evidence. Your evidence is more important than his.

[the debater]

I've said this before, and I hope I don't annoy anybody by repeating this, but I strongly believe as of right now that democratic socialism is the best way to implement/maintain a socialist economy. Ultimately, many people who are opposed to communism are concerned that in a communist system, accountability will be absent. I haven't read my history about China and the Soviet Union in depth, but from what I've heard, apparently lack of accountability was a major problem in these countries. Of course, the Soviets were pretty advanced for awhile in their space program despite being communist, so maybe they didn't have any accountability problems at the time? :confused: Another way to look at this is that there's also the idea of decentralized socialism. After all, who says you need to have a huge dictatorial government to manage a socialist economy? Overall, I would day that the topic brought up by the OP is very complex, and needs to be discussed further. But yeah, any other democratic socialists here?

[argeiphontes]

^ Nope. ;) I happen to think that market anarchism (a gradual revolution) is the best way to bring about the next economy and change consciousness. :grin:

edit: Ok, to make a real point about democratic socialism. I don't think it does enough to dismantle capitalist structures, but that might be because I'm assuming you mean an economy like Sweden. Without real worker control, all you have is a government enforcing greater equality, which I don't think is revolutionary. It's only as revolutionary as the Soviet Union, at best, and that wasn't so hard to return to capitalism. (Not to mention potential for oppression.)

The students in question didn't have any experience with self-organization and perhaps no workable spontaneous structure arose to help them achieve. Without ideology, they didn't have communism, they had chaos, i.e. "social anarchy" not anarchism.

edit2: The Soviet Union not being revolutionary is not an opinion everybody on this board will share. All the usual disclaimers apply...

[ChrisK]

Ultimately, many people who are opposed to communism are concerned that in a communist system, accountability will be absent.

I think you might be a bit confused. Communism is definable as a classless and stateless society. While its up to debate whether the Soviet Union ever actually became socialist (I personally don't think it did, nor could it have after 1921), its fairly well established that communism is a latter stage.

As for socialism, which you are talking about, the main structuring systems would be things like workplace democracy and worker's councils that are able to provide accountability.

For more information I recommend you read something along the lines of Paul D'Amato's book The Meaning of Marxism. This has a chapter on the Russian Revolution that might clear up some misunderstanding.

[synthesis]

Ultimately, many people who are opposed to communism are concerned that in a communist system, accountability will be absent.

Who is it that will not be accountable to whom? Make sure that socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) and communism (the absence of all classes) are not being conflated in your analysis.

[RedMaterialist]

First of all, under communism, there wont be any professors or professorial class. Learning will be done socially, not hierarchically.

[Skyhilist]

I've said this before, and I hope I don't annoy anybody by repeating this, but I strongly believe as of right now that democratic socialism is the best way to implement/maintain a socialist economy.

The term "democratic socialism" is extremely abstract, what do you actually mean?


Ultimately, many people who are opposed to communism are concerned that in a communist system, accountability will be absent. I haven't read my history about China and the Soviet Union in depth, but from what I've heard, apparently lack of accountability was a major problem in these countries.

Yes, accountability was a major problem for these capitalist countries.


Of course, the Soviets were pretty advanced for awhile in their space program despite being communist

Most of the space race occurred during a time where even M-Ls wouldn't consider the Soviet Union to be socialist, let alone all other communists.


so maybe they didn't have any accountability problems at the time? :confused:

They had plenty of problems, they just also had good scientists and were really motivated to beat America in the space race.


Another way to look at this is that there's also the idea of decentralized socialism. After all, who says you need to have a huge dictatorial government to manage a socialist economy?

This is just libertarian socialism, which is a pretty common belief on here. But we don't call it "democratic socialism" because when you use an ambiguous term like that, people have no idea what you mean really.


But yeah, any other democratic socialists here?

This, again, will depend on what you meant by "democratic socialism".

[Skyhilist]

First of all, under communism, there wont be any professors or professorial class. Learning will be done socially, not hierarchically.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean that there will be no one teaching subjects and everything will just be like a communal study group? This doesn't make sense if this is what you mean. There's going to be some authority teaching the class. If the class studies from a textbook together, then the people who wrote that textbook just become the authority. So why not have the authority be the type that Bakunin meant when he said "on the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker"? Why not have it be someone who knows, say, science for example teach a science class on the basis that they have legitimate knowledge and authority in the field of science? So long as open-ended questions aren't taught as if they have "right" and "wrong" answers and there aren't horrible evaluation systems (like current grading systems) that make people value test-taking ability more than learning, I don't see the problem. It's not like under socialism subjecting yourself to a professor you didn't like would be compulsory or something.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Could you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean that there will be no one teaching subjects and everything will just be like a communal study group? This doesn't make sense if this is what you mean. There's going to be some authority teaching the class. If the class studies from a textbook together, then the people who wrote that textbook just become the authority. So why not have the authority be the type that Bakunin meant when he said "on the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker"? Why not have it be someone who knows, say, science for example teach a science class on the basis that they have legitimate knowledge and authority in the field of science? So long as open-ended questions aren't taught as if they have "right" and "wrong" answers and there aren't horrible evaluation systems (like current grading systems) that make people value test-taking ability more than learning, I don't see the problem. It's not like under socialism subjecting yourself to a professor you didn't like would be compulsory or something.

THIS. (http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html)

[Skyhilist]

THIS. (http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html)

That's sort of a long article and I really only have time to get on here between breaks in homework tonight, do you think you could summarize?

[Marxaveli]

THIS. (http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/education/freire/freire-2.html)

Hehe, I knew you were going to reference Freire.

Anyways chom, Pedagogy of the Opressesd provides a Marxist analysis of teacher-student relationships under capitalism. In our current system, the education system is a "banking system" of education, where students are seen as subjects to the instructors (masters), and are simple blank slates designed to simply take in information and memorize it. Critical thinking is discouraged, especially the minute the victors in history are questioned, or if any radical or provocative viewpoint is revealed. The banking-system, basically is designed to turn the students into passive, obedient workers to keep the capitalist system and ruling class interests intact. Freire proposes a solution to this - the "problem posing" system, which encourages critical thinking, and dialogical conversation where both the student and teachers learn from one another. There is a lot more to it than that, but thats a synopsis for you.

[Skyhilist]

Ahh alright, so there are still teachers then, but with less power concentrated in their hands? If so, that sounds completely reasonable but I don't see why it was used to counter one of my statements because I wasn't trying to argue against that logic in the first place -- only trying to say that teachers will still be necessary, because I thought a previous poster was implying that they wouldn't be for some reason.

[Marxaveli]

I think teachers will be necessary through the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletarian, and early stages of socialism. When full communism is achieved, the concept of an actual teacher may become obsolete much in the same way the state itself would, but who knows.

[Skyhilist]

I think teachers will be necessary through the revolution, the dictatorship of the proletarian, and early stages of socialism. When full communism is achieved, the concept of an actual teacher may become obsolete much in the same way the state itself would, but who knows.

Well, I mean if I'm learning something new, obviously I'm going to need it to learn it from somewhere? Where, if not from a teacher, and what would make alternative sources superior to teachers? Personally, I'm glad to have had at least some of my teachers, particularly science ones. There's no way I could've learned calculus, or chemistry, or physics, or biology so well without them.

[cyu]

I think the model isn't one of always requiring teachers, but that *everyone* is now a teacher (and a student). One should not consider oneself to be the superior one for imparting knowledge - not only do you not know everything, there are things even you can learn from any child if you were actually trying.

Anyway from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed

Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a revolutionary text, and people in totalitarian states risk punishment reading it.

During the South African anti-apartheid struggle, ad-hoc copies of Pedagogy of the Oppressed were distributed underground as part of the "ideological weaponry" of various revolutionary groups like the Black Consciousness Movement. In the 1970s and 1980s the book was banned and kept clandestine.

[noble brown]

The institution of teaching may disappear, that is to say, centralized planned pedagogy. But, the social identity of being a teacher will probably never disappear. Some people are really good at teaching, explaining and conveying knowledge. There just wouldn't be a institution telling a "teacher" how to teach or what to teach. If you are good at teaching and you do it a lot you will most likely be known as a teacher. So if I want to learn something like math I would go to someone who is a teacher of math. How he or she conducts the course would be entirely up to the "teacher" and since it's your choice whether or not to attend or rather to seek his or her tutelage you could bone out if the teach is being over bearing, authoritarian or a pompous ass. But since no one would likely seek this person out as a teacher because I don't believe many ppl would want to be taught that way this person likely would not be known as a teacher anyhow.

[Devrim]

Quite apart from the fact that this is all complete nonsense anyway, it is not even consistent within its own logic:


He offered a much more anecdotal counter-example. He mentioned something that a professor at Yale did. Supposedly the students wanted to "prove that communism would work" to the professor, so he told them that he would do their grades "like in communism": the average grade would be grade that the class got. Supposedly, over time the average grade started at B and then went down sharply to a D, meaning everyone nearly failed. This example is used to justify the assertion that workers would slack off under communism and that they wouldn't produce enough over time to sustain everyone, meaning everyone would suffer.

He does the grades. These sort of things are notoriously subjective in any case, but in this case the person marking the papers expects to see a decline in grades, and therefore is influenced whether on a conscious or a sub conscious level to give lower grades.

The experiment has no objective data. If the story is true, the only thing that it shows is that you can find a class full of students at Yale, who aren't bright enough to know how to set up an experiment properly.

Devrim

[Rurkel]

Plus, of course, wages and grading are quite different things. Grades are, at least, supposed to reflect your ability to master the material, whereas wages reflect the rate of economic exploitation and the current state of class warfare. They certainly don't reflect "hard work" in anything but minor way.

Oh, and I don't think this story is actually true, just a "commies want to reform the teaching process by averaging all grades, aren't they ridiculous" kind of thing.

[Comrade Jacob]

He obviously haven't heard or understand "From each according to his ability to each according to his need".

[robbo203]

I was talking to a friend at school today. He was talking about how no one would do their part under communism because supposedly the end result of work wouldn't be enough to motivate people towards work. I provided the example of anarchist Catalonia, where agricultural production increased significantly with labor acting as a cooperative force.


Communism - or socialism (same thing for traditional Marxism) - will be a classless and wageless society. Individuals will no longer be compelled to work under the lash of the wage system but will voluntarily contribute their labour "according to their ability".

What is overlooked is that even today, under capitalism - and despite capitalism - many do just that. They work in the voluntary sector which is in fact quite sizeable - 6.8% of total employment in the USA for example - although if you look at all forms of unpaid work, (including the household economy) the total number of hours worked exceed those for which a monetary payment is paid.

Surprisingly , the introduction of "monetary rewards " such as tax incentives
or direct payments, can have a significant de-motivating effect on volunteers. Numerous studies have shown this to be the case. Have a look at this article, for example

http://ideas.repec.org/p/zur/iewwpx/007.html

It bears out what Ive often thought - that the best workers are volunteer workers. Intrinsic motivation where work is its own reward and the outcome of our own very human need for creative expression, will play a very significant role in the world of work in a socialist society in which we have complete control over the conditions of our own labour with no boss class to kowtow to or bargain wiith . Just free association.

[Skyhilist]

I think the model isn't one of always requiring teachers, but that *everyone* is now a teacher (and a student). One should not consider oneself to be the superior one for imparting knowledge - not only do you not know everything, there are things even you can learn from any child if you were actually trying.

Anyway from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed

Pedagogy of the Oppressed is a revolutionary text, and people in totalitarian states risk punishment reading it.

During the South African anti-apartheid struggle, ad-hoc copies of Pedagogy of the Oppressed were distributed underground as part of the "ideological weaponry" of various revolutionary groups like the Black Consciousness Movement. In the 1970s and 1980s the book was banned and kept clandestine.

So basically, you learn from your teachers and your teachers learn from you (i.e. get feedback on how they should be better teachers)? If so, this is already what the better science teachers at my school do...

[Thirsty Crow]

Significant shortening of labor time. Mechanization wherever viable, this time not putting people out of work and consequently dependent on meager state provision of social security. And a culture and upbringing of cooperation and sharing of labor tasks.

Some shit just ain't gonna take care of itself.

Really, if you had 15 hours of labor in a week, and free access to most goods (with e.g. rationing in other cases), what would necessitate either hoarding and wanting to command the labor of others?