The Lack of Economic Incentive and the Failure of Communism.

[AdrianO]

This is probably a question that has been dwelt over several times on this and other forums, nevertheless there is always a new lesson to learn.

Economists often attribute the failure of Soviet socialism/communism (whatever you want to call it), is due to the lack of economic incentive (i.e greed).
For example, why would a worker make a better product, if his wealth will remain the same whether he excelled at his work, or slacked and pretended to be busy? The answer to most people will obviously to get by with the least amount of work for the same reward.

Now what I'd like to know is, how would a communist state address this lack of incentive, or in other words, the greed that economists think is the driving force behind doing a better job?

I have a few answers myself, but I'd like to get a discussion going.

[ComradeAllende]

Economists often attribute the failure of Soviet socialism/communism (whatever you want to call it), is due to the lack of economic incentive (i.e greed).

For example, why would a worker make a better product, if his wealth will remain the same whether he excelled at his work, or slacked and pretended to be busy? The answer to most people will obviously to get by with the least amount of work for the same reward.

Now what I'd like to know is, how would a communist state address this lack of incentive, or in other words, the greed that economists think is the driving force behind doing a better job?

Well, it must first be said that a number of socialists critiqued the Soviet mode of economic planning, mainly for its arbitrary swings in policy during the Stalin years but also for its overly centralized and bureaucratized process. Leon Trotsky himself castigated the Stalinists for centralizing control of the economy, famously arguing that central planners could not comprehend (let alone analyze and organize) the millions of factors that occur within a modern industrial economy. Indeed, many modern socialists argue for a more decentralized system of planning, with workers having a more direct role in the process (this has the added benefit of reducing the power of the bureaucrats and preventing a Stalinist degeneration).

In addition, the issue of incentives becomes moot once you realize that socialism doesn't necessarily involve the unconditional equalization of compensation among workers and in fact gravitates toward the abolition of "wage labor" altogether. While a dramatic equalization of salaries would certainly reduce productivity, no socialist programme worth its salt would actually propose this. A more feasible plan would be to increase wages for workers in "critical sectors" (basic industry, mining, etc.), while maintaining a hierarchical wage system (albeit compressed). All the while, workers would be granted control over the means of production via a variety of strategies, including self-management and the imposition of worker's councils and industrial syndicates. For the most part, socialism has more to do with workers' control over the means of production and less about pay scales.

[o well this is ok I guess]

there was never any time of any note in which the Soviet Union did not have system of differential wages in place.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Wage differences aren't abolished overnight by the Proletarian revolution, at least not according to most Leftist movements, but become obsolete as goods become more universally available and scarcity decreases. It should be emphasized though, that the need for wage differences itself assumes there are costs involved in becoming a more skilled worker. Perhaps if medical school didn't cost so much and require so much personal risk, the salaries of doctors could be more in line with that of everyone else.

Also, productivity goes down, but the intensity of labor itself is a negative factor in living standards. The "Incentive" for many to work intensely for long hours (especially on the lower strata) is not because this is a part of a good life, but because they need to in order not to starve or lose their home.

[AdrianO]

Well, it must first be said that a number of socialists critiqued the Soviet mode of economic planning, mainly for its arbitrary swings in policy during the Stalin years but also for its overly centralized and bureaucratized process. Leon Trotsky himself castigated the Stalinists for centralizing control of the economy, famously arguing that central planners could not comprehend (let alone analyze and organize) the millions of factors that occur within a modern industrial economy. Indeed, many modern socialists argue for a more decentralized system of planning, with workers having a more direct role in the process (this has the added benefit of reducing the power of the bureaucrats and preventing a Stalinist degeneration).

In addition, the issue of incentives becomes moot once you realize that socialism doesn't necessarily involve the unconditional equalization of compensation among workers and in fact gravitates toward the abolition of "wage labor" altogether. While a dramatic equalization of salaries would certainly reduce productivity, no socialist programme worth its salt would actually propose this. A more feasible plan would be to increase wages for workers in "critical sectors" (basic industry, mining, etc.), while maintaining a hierarchical wage system (albeit compressed). All the while, workers would be granted control over the means of production via a variety of strategies, including self-management and the imposition of worker's councils and industrial syndicates. For the most part, socialism has more to do with workers' control over the means of production and less about pay scales.

Very interesting points.
However, lack of incentive is not only expressed in wages, but also job security. In the Soviet Union, you could've been a terrible employee but you would still be guaranteed a job. Also wages were different but the difference was in most cases negligible, especially when comparing industries.

I don't understand how wage labor can be abolished, if labor is needed to produce anything and everything. I don't know anyone who would work for free.

Also, what would motivate a laborer that now supposedly owns the means of production, to innovate, develop technology, and expand production ?

I know capitalists can answer this question by the need to accumulate more wealth and profits without selling their own labor.
Would the laborer-owner be motivated in the same way ? Doesn't that make him proletariat-turn-capitalist ?

[Rudolf]

For example, why would a worker make a better product, if his wealth will remain the same whether he excelled at his work, or slacked and pretended to be busy? The answer to most people will obviously to get by with the least amount of work for the same reward.


Lol, this sounds like my work history.



Wage differences aren't abolished overnight by the Proletarian revolution, at least not according to most Leftist movements, but become obsolete as goods become more universally available and scarcity decreases.

Oh so the revolution grants me fuck all then. Good to know. I'm not gonna risk my life so that i can remain poor and neither will the rest of the working class revolting. I'll just steal from you.

It's kind of a sick joke tbh. One of the deciding factors in my struggle in adulthood to find a wage is that i was born in '88 to a factory worker in a city that now only really has shops left. I can't even attain the meagre wage of my parents! Why should i have to make do during a proletarian revolution with fuck all while someone who had every advantage in capitalist society gets to be way better off during, and no doubt after, a revolution that is supposedly done in my fucking name... No thank you.

[Armchair Partisan]

Oh so the revolution grants me fuck all then. Good to know. I'm not gonna risk my life so that i can remain poor and neither will the rest of the working class revolting. I'll just steal from you.

It's kind of a sick joke tbh. One of the deciding factors in my struggle in adulthood to find a wage is that i was born in '88 to a factory worker in a city that now only really has shops left. I can't even attain the meagre wage of my parents! Why should i have to make do during a proletarian revolution with fuck all while someone who had every advantage in capitalist society gets to be way better off during, and no doubt after, a revolution that is supposedly done in my fucking name... No thank you.

I am inclined to agree with this. The incentive in a socialist society is that due to workers' control over the means of production, if everyone works honestly, maximum mutual prosperity can be achieved, and anyone who slacks off has a small, indirect effect on both their own lifestyle and others'.

I, for one, am inclined to disagree with Gordon Gekko and would like to offer this simple statement: "Greed is bad". With that in mind, it's insane to suggest an economic system which actually rewards (instead of punishes) greed. I think it makes sense, perhaps, to offer bonuses to people who work in particularly dangerous professions (military, uranium mining etc.) but otherwise, we don't need to further "incentivize" people and force them to break their backs or turn to dishonest methods just to gain an edge. The present society already offers plenty of opportunities for that! Socialism works under a very different paradigm.

[cyu]

Capitalism sets up a system in which rewards do not go to the workers, but to the owners of capital. One might argue this is a lack of incentive that leads to the failure of capitalism (for example, when rich people are killed for their property claims, which I see as a natural attribute of a system that tries to maintain capitalism).

But as far as motivation goes, my assumption is that external rewards will never make a society as happy as intrinsic motivation.

[Sewer Socialist]

For example, why would a worker make a better product, if his wealth will remain the same whether he excelled at his work, or slacked and pretended to be busy?

For how many workers in capitalism is this true? I have never gotten a raise for work performance in any job. I've barely had any raises ever. Wages in the United States have stagnated since the '70s, and productivity continues to climb faster and faster without these "incentives" - there is no correlation whatsoever.

https://images.angelpub.com/2014/24/24955/wages-vs-productivity.png

[AdrianO]

For how many workers in capitalism is this true? I have never gotten a raise for work performance in any job. I've barely had any raises ever. Wages in the United States have stagnated since the '70s, and productivity continues to climb faster and faster without these "incentives" - there is no correlation whatsoever.

https://images.angelpub.com/2014/24/24955/wages-vs-productivity.png

Your graph is a great example of capitalist exploitation.
Wages indeed are stagnant, and that's why more people are turning to politicians like Sanders.
There is a correlation between productivity and wages. What you see on the graph is when the capitalists have become increasingly greedy after the disspation of the socialist threat.
You see productivity has increased, and that is because of 2 things:
1. Labor automation
2. Stagnant wages
3. The above for the capitalists means less input for the same output = more productivity on paper. It doesn't mean you are producing more than another worker from the 60s with the same job. It means you are more likely producing the same output for less money (wages vs inflation over the years) and whatever inefficiency there was in the 60s is now countered by more sophisticated machines that require less operators. (Again less input from the capitalist)

Capitalism will fail eventually and its failures are already bringing disasters to human kind due to greed being it's core principle.
But communism will always fail first because as it seems it doesn't take into account that people need incentive to do any kind of work. It doesn't offer an alternative to the greed incentive, so successfully employed by the capitalists to the point that we are referred to now as consumers.
Not all people care or want prosperity for everyone other than themselves, that is a core human trait - selfishness.
There is an alternative however but I feel, rather know the capitalists in power would never allow it.

[Zoop]

It is a mistake to study work and phenomena related to work, such as incentive, under capitalism, and apply our understanding of this to labour under communism, as if they were somehow fundamentally identical.

A clear lack of motivation and incentive is evident under capitalism, because workers are forced to labour for another. They are alienated from their work, their workplace and their surroundings. They have no control over these conditions. The bourgeois pseudo-intellectuals will have us think that because of this, people have to be driven to work - they have to be driven by force or incentives such as money. What they don't understand is why this lack of motivation occurs. They prattle on about these characteristics being biologically immutable - being part of "human nature" - whilst happily ignoring the context in which these characteristics arise. They assume that people are driven by money because they are consumerist automatons motivated by greed. It apparently has nothing to do with the fact that money is necessary for survival under capitalism...

Production unmotivated by greed, by money, by reward, by remuneration, occurs all the time. This form of production is carried out for pleasure. It is an autotelic activity. It is a purposive act, a satisfying and meaningful act, precisely because we control this work. It is an extension of ourselves. It does not exist outside of us, but is rather a consequence of free, human activity. This is how work under communism shall be arranged. It is unnecessary to construct philistinic incentives in order drive people to work. This view is grounded on the debasement of the human being.

Some leftists, such as the Pareconists (Michael Albert) adhere to this view - this insulting and degrading view. This only demonstrates that bourgeois values infects the left, and oozes out of every crevice. It is up to us to rally against these banal ideologues, and affirm our unrelenting aesthetic nature.

[AdrianO]

It is a mistake to study work and phenomena related to work, such as incentive, under capitalism, and apply our understanding of this to labour under communism, as if they were somehow fundamentally identical.

A clear lack of motivation and incentive is evident under capitalism, because workers are forced to labour for another. They are alienated from their work, their workplace and their surroundings. They have no control over these conditions. The bourgeois pseudo-intellectuals will have us think that because of this, people have to be driven to work - they have to be driven by force or incentives such as money. What they don't understand is why this lack of motivation occurs. They prattle on about these characteristics being biologically immutable - being part of "human nature" - whilst happily ignoring the context in which these characteristics arise. They assume that people are driven by money because they are consumerist automatons motivated by greed. It apparently has nothing to do with the fact that money is necessary for survival under capitalism...

Production unmotivated by greed, by money, by reward, by remuneration, occurs all the time. This form of production is carried out for pleasure. It is an autotelic activity. It is a purposive act, a satisfying and meaningful act, precisely because we control this work. It is an extension of ourselves. It does not exist outside of us, but is rather a consequence of free, human activity. This is how work under communism shall be arranged. It is unnecessary to construct philistinic incentives in order drive people to work. This view is grounded on the debasement of the human being.

Some leftists, such as the Pareconists (Michael Albert) adhere to this view - this insulting and degrading view. This only demonstrates that bourgeois values infects the left, and oozes out of every crevice. It is up to us to rally against these banal ideologues, and affirm our unrelenting aesthetic nature.

Very good! I agree with every word. Except, this doesn't solve the problem of undesired labor. If I'm free to do whatever I desire as work, without having to worry about my basic shelter and food, who would be picking up the trash, or laying bricks in cold weather, or even staring and meaningless spreadsheets in an office?
I think communism needs reform to be able to give a serious answer to these questions and put an end to modern slavery that is capitalism.

[hexaune]

Very good! I agree with every word. Except, this doesn't solve the problem of undesired labor. If I'm free to do whatever I desire as work, without having to worry about my basic shelter and food, who would be picking up the trash, or laying bricks in cold weather, or even staring and meaningless spreadsheets in an office?
I think communism needs reform to be able to give a serious answer to these questions and put an end to modern slavery that is capitalism.

Most people would happily do their fair share if we were no longer under capitalism imo. Just look at what happens when there's a natural disaster (which in some ways causes a temporary lifting of the day to day capitalist system people are used to), people group together, clear the roads, help repair each others houses, collect and remove rubbish... they do all of this without even thinking or asking to be paid for it. Capitalism leads to the attitude (in most, not all people) that I will only do something if there is a direct financial gain for me. I've not articulated this very well as I am being crippled by tooth pain but hopefully it makes sense!

[AdrianO]

Most people would happily do their fair share if we were no longer under capitalism imo. Just look at what happens when there's a natural disaster (which in some ways causes a temporary lifting of the day to day capitalist system people are used to), people group together, clear the roads, help repair each others houses, collect and remove rubbish... they do all of this without even thinking or asking to be paid for it. Capitalism leads to the attitude (in most, not all people) that I will only do something if there is a direct financial gain for me. I've not articulated this very well as I am being crippled by tooth pain but hopefully it makes sense!
I don't think so.
It's been proven throughout history that people come together during crisis and threats of mass extermination, but in times of peace/prosperity they are less likely to help each other out.
We aren't all good Samaritans all the time.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Kinda gotta lol at the op. It's like, "Yo - you never worked inn the low-wage/dead end sector?" The "lack of incentive" is a capitalist phenomena (which, y'know, also existed in the state capitalist USSR, and everywhere the wage relation exists).
The economists who say this shit have obviously failed to conduct any sort of objective investigation in workplaces. Certainly, theft, absenteeism, and a general sense of "Why bother?" are endemic to the majority of workplaces I've been in. There's certainly nobody except the most exceptional bootlickers who are hauling ass for minimum (or near minimum) wage except when being directly supervised. So . . . the thesis in question is pretty crap.

[AdrianO]

Kinda gotta lol at the op. It's like, "Yo - you never worked inn the low-wage/dead end sector?" The "lack of incentive" is a capitalist phenomena (which, y'know, also existed in the state capitalist USSR, and everywhere the wage relation exists).
The economists who say this shit have obviously failed to conduct any sort of objective investigation in workplaces. Certainly, theft, absenteeism, and a general sense of "Why bother?" are endemic to the majority of workplaces I've been in. There's certainly nobody except the most exceptional bootlickers who are hauling ass for minimum (or near minimum) wage except when being directly supervised. So . . . the thesis in question is pretty crap.

At least there's a crude mechanism that controls workers and make them more interested in not losing their dead end jobs and ending up homeless. You equate incentive with motivation which is wrong. I may not be motivated to be the best employee, but I'm sure as hell not going to get myself fired and unemployed.
It's a negative incentive but it works ! For the more dedicated, there are of course positive incentives too.
What does communism offer instead of these capitalist incentives ? You get a job for life no matter what, and you can continue to slack just as you did under capitalism, except this time you aren't really worried about losing your job or ending up homeless, so you get by with doing even less than the minimum.
And as noble as the goal of communism is, it's clearly been proven as insufficient to motivate most people to do more than the bare minimum.

I'm certainly not here to defend capitalism, but in order to defeat it you must understand why it won and is still winning.
So I'm not sure why are you 'loling' here.

[Alet]

The notion that a kind of "economic incentive" is necessary to keep people motivated at working already entails a belief in human nature, that is, static, transhistoric characteristics of humans. However, communists reject such a conception of man, for man is constituted by nothing more than his relation to society. There are specific, concrete reasons why people in a capitalist (or feudal or ancient) society hate working, one is division of labor. But this is not a natural law - for example, have you never felt good while working, may it be because it was for someone you like, personal fulfillment etc.? Why not have a society with the same phenomena on a broader level? Why not give a social meaning to labor where an economic one served the function to reward hard work?

[AdrianO]

The notion that a kind of "economic incentive" is necessary to keep people motivated at working already entails a belief in human nature, that is, static, transhistoric characteristics of humans. However, communists reject such a conception of man, for man is constituted by nothing more than his relation to society. There are specific, concrete reasons why people in a capitalist (or feudal or ancient) society hate working, one is division of labor. But this is not a natural law - for example, have you never felt good while working, may it be because it was for someone you like, personal fulfillment etc.? Why not have a society with the same phenomena on a broader level? Why not give a social meaning to labor where an economic one served the function to reward hard work?
Unfortunately my posts are still moderated, so it takes a while for them to appear.
I agree with you that social meaning should be given to labor, but that will never happen when you can't provide shelter and security for yourself and family.
There is no point in selling empty dreams to people when they are struggling to put food on the table. Basic Maslow theory.
In my opinion, communism starts on the wrong foot, by playing within the game created by capitalists.
For all of us to prosper and remove the elites, I think 3 issues must be solved first:
1. The problem of resource scarcity.
2. Abolishing/automating all labor types deemed as undesirable and/or ineffective to human advancement.
3. Total abolishment of money, wages, and even bartering of goods.

These 3 points will require massive investment in science and technology which have also been stagnant as a result of capitalism. (Useless gadgets and more comfortable cars do not count as progress, they are products of consumerism)

If all essential resources were made available at no physical labor cost, then we can have truly meaningful labor that helps advance us as a species and civilization. Otherwise, a world based on money will get us nowhere, no matter communist or capitalist.
Economic incentive is a capitalist game based on money, and greed is it's sideffect. Just remember that you can't force people to work and do something they don't want to do. But if there was no need to work at all to begin with because resources are infinitely available upon desire, then people will work for higher cause or at least for their own self-fulfillment.
I hope this made sense.
I'd be happy to elaborate.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Oh so the revolution grants me fuck all then. Good to know. I'm not gonna risk my life so that i can remain poor and neither will the rest of the working class revolting. I'll just steal from you.

It's kind of a sick joke tbh. One of the deciding factors in my struggle in adulthood to find a wage is that i was born in '88 to a factory worker in a city that now only really has shops left. I can't even attain the meagre wage of my parents! Why should i have to make do during a proletarian revolution with fuck all while someone who had every advantage in capitalist society gets to be way better off during, and no doubt after, a revolution that is supposedly done in my fucking name... No thank you.

The revolution doesn't grant you "fuck all". wage differentials would exist under a different logic - Under capitalism, it is because of the value an alien class places on your labor in the proletarian state, it's because the working class themselves wants to encourage their fellow workers to take up certain jobs that are insufficiently filled. You want doctors to be paid more because your health depends on it as a worker. If it is actually the case that there is no shortage of medical labor, then the need for that wage difference would go away.

Also, we're just speaking of a transitional period here. Obviously, the long term goal is a society that works without wages, therefore without wage differences however that doesn't happen overnight. Hence, as others pointed out, most revolutionary states still had some wage differences. Marx himself articulates something like this, I believe in the 1844 manuscripts when he talks of the lowest, middle and highest "stages" of communism.

Not to mention, work intensity and hours would be reduced, too, and compensation would go up for most workers regardless (certainly all who are currently forced to work for low wages by necessity).

[Rudolf]

The revolution doesn't grant you "fuck all". No you're right, nothing is granted. We have to take it.



wage differentials would exist under a different logic - Under capitalism, it is because of the value an alien class places on your labor in the proletarian state, it's because the working class themselves wants to encourage their fellow workers to take up certain jobs that are insufficiently filled. You want doctors to be paid more because your health depends on it as a worker. If it is actually the case that there is no shortage of medical labor, then the need for that wage difference would go away. That is pretty much the same justification for wage differentials now.

To me it's worrying you're advocating the wages system. i seek its destruction and im not going to wait for some mythical future point when the stars are all aligned.

What you advocate in effect leads to a sort of rule of those with a techne mediated by commodity production. The shortage of medical labour is axiomatic. Most workers lack the means to gain the skills required for medical labour. This will also be the case the moment the revolution occurs. It's obviously not even just with medical labour but with lots of work. By guaranteeing higher wages for jobs with a shortage during the "transitional period" you're sanctifying by way of revolution present injustices, present inequalities. What you're proposing is a continuation not only of a basic economic stratification that exists presently in society but also the same based on race, gender etc.

The person that immediately benefits from what you advocate is the fairly well off white straight cis man. You dont shake up the social hierarchy in society you maintain it.

Even if this wasnt the case it's unworkable anyway. The moment the proletariat starts to alter the material conditions in society production will shatter. The revolutionary areas will face generalised scarcity while bourgeois forces will aim to crush it through siege and brute force. The revolution is starving to death and you think the way forward is wages. No, there is only one course of action that maintains the vital revolutionary spirit: to immediately take possession of everything, of all the buildings, all the stores of goods, taking account of it all to make sure none is wasted and ration based on need.



Also, we're just speaking of a transitional period here. Obviously, the long term goal is a society that works without wages, therefore without wage differences however that doesn't happen overnight. Hence, as others pointed out, most revolutionary states still had some wage differences. Marx himself articulates something like this, I believe in the 1844 manuscripts when he talks of the lowest, middle and highest "stages" of communism.
Somehow i don't think Marx conceives of any 'stage' of communism as having a wages system. I'd have thought Marx was less foolish.

[Hit The North]

Very good! I agree with every word. Except, this doesn't solve the problem of undesired labor. If I'm free to do whatever I desire as work, without having to worry about my basic shelter and food, who would be picking up the trash, or laying bricks in cold weather, or even staring and meaningless spreadsheets in an office?
I think communism needs reform to be able to give a serious answer to these questions and put an end to modern slavery that is capitalism.

You wouldn't be free to do whatever, you would be subject to the democratic authority of your fellow workers.

......

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

That is pretty much the same justification for wage differentials now.Not really. Under the logic of the working class, something like a janitor or other kinds of less pleasant labor might actually be better compensated, precisely because it is unpleasant.


To me it's worrying you're advocating the wages system. i seek its destruction and im not going to wait for some mythical future point when the stars are all aligned.
I too seek its destruction, and if conditions are such that they can be eliminated from day 1, then yes we should eliminate them. However, I am open to the possibility that the working class might decide to keep some differences for the time being.

Don't be confused by my statements, I don't support differences in earnings, I just think it's plausible that it would take some time to build a proper alternative, and that the working class as a group might well be willing to endorse temporary differences within themselves to ensure the distribution of goods and services.


What you're proposing is a continuation not only of a basic economic stratification that exists presently in society but also the same based on race, gender etcIt's the opposite - I'm not proposing the continuation of these stratifications, I'm recognizing that it might take time to dismantle them while preventing extreme scarcity.

The point is that black, women, lbgt workers will have the kind of ability to become doctors and skilled workers that they would never have had under capitalism.


Even if this wasnt the case it's unworkable anyway. The moment the proletariat starts to alter the material conditions in society production will shatter. The revolutionary areas will face generalised scarcity while bourgeois forces will aim to crush it through siege and brute force. The revolution is starving to death and you think the way forward is wages. No, there is only one course of action that maintains the vital revolutionary spirit: to immediately take possession of everything, of all the buildings, all the stores of goods, taking account of it all to make sure none is wasted and ration based on need.
You cannot take possession of heart surgery the way you can just take rice from the shelf of a supermarket. You need the consent of those who do the labor of providing heart surgery.


Somehow i don't think Marx conceives of any 'stage' of communism as having a wages system. I'd have thought Marx was less foolish. Let me rephrase then, and instead discuss labor vouchers - an idea that Marx himself advocated against as a solution to capitalism, but defended as a way of bridging between capitalist commodity production and communism. Some kind of particularly intense and difficult work like surgery might entail receiving more labor vouchers, at least until the point in time where there are enough surgeons.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Very interesting points.
However, lack of incentive is not only expressed in wages, but also job security. In the Soviet Union, you could've been a terrible employee but you would still be guaranteed a job. Also wages were different but the difference was in most cases negligible, especially when comparing industries.

I don't understand how wage labor can be abolished, if labor is needed to produce anything and everything. I don't know anyone who would work for free.

Also, what would motivate a laborer that now supposedly owns the means of production, to innovate, develop technology, and expand production ?

I know capitalists can answer this question by the need to accumulate more wealth and profits without selling their own labor.
Would the laborer-owner be motivated in the same way ? Doesn't that make him proletariat-turn-capitalist ? what determines whether a wage difference is negligible or not


Very good! I agree with every word. Except, this doesn't solve the problem of undesired labor. If I'm free to do whatever I desire as work, without having to worry about my basic shelter and food, who would be picking up the trash, or laying bricks in cold weather, or even staring and meaningless spreadsheets in an office?
I think communism needs reform to be able to give a serious answer to these questions and put an end to modern slavery that is capitalism. I would be
beats doing sales

[cyu]

Some work is desired by the capitalist, and it done because the capitalist is in power. Some work is desired by employees, but it doesn't get done because employees are not in power. Whether the room you sleep in is cleaned, or the toilet nearby is clean, may or may not get done - that kind of depends on you. Some people get more OCD about what's around them - then it's up to them to clean it themselves. If they're less OCD about it, then it just gets messier. But there's no capitalist coming in telling everyone exactly how clean something has to be, or when to stop cleaning.

[AdrianO]

Unfortunately my posts are still moderated, so it takes a while for them to appear.
I agree with you that social meaning should be given to labor, but that will never happen when you can't provide shelter and security for yourself and family.
There is no point in selling empty dreams to people when they are struggling to put food on the table. Basic Maslow theory.
In my opinion, communism starts on the wrong foot, by playing within the game created by capitalists.
For all of us to prosper and remove the elites, I think 3 issues must be solved first:
1. The problem of resource scarcity.
2. Abolishing/automating all labor types deemed as undesirable and/or ineffective to human advancement.
3. Total abolishment of money, wages, and even bartering of goods.

These 3 points will require massive investment in science and technology which have also been stagnant as a result of capitalism. (Useless gadgets and more comfortable cars do not count as progress, they are products of consumerism)

If all essential resources were made available at no physical labor cost, then we can have truly meaningful labor that helps advance us as a species and civilization. Otherwise, a world based on money will get us nowhere, no matter communist or capitalist.
Economic incentive is a capitalist game based on money, and greed is it's sideffect. Just remember that you can't force people to work and do something they don't want to do. But if there was no need to work at all to begin with because resources are infinitely available upon desire, then people will work for higher cause or at least for their own self-fulfillment.
I hope this made sense.
I'd be happy to elaborate.
The above 3 points need to be tackled imo, before any type of communism is feasible. Otherwise it's just playing a losing game.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

At least there's a crude mechanism that controls workers and make them more interested in not losing their dead end jobs and ending up homeless. You equate incentive with motivation which is wrong. I may not be motivated to be the best employee, but I'm sure as hell not going to get myself fired and unemployed . . . You get a job for life no matter what, and you can continue to slack just as you did under capitalism, except this time you aren't really worried about losing your job or ending up homeless, so you get by with doing even less than the minimum.

Yet these mechanisms also existed in the state capitalist systems you're referencing. Workers could be (and were) fired in the SU - and what's more, firing could often mean blacklisting (or imprisonment). The assumptions underlying the things you're saying are simply not based in reality. You're operating off of a crude caricature.


It's a negative incentive but it works ! For the more dedicated, there are of course positive incentives too. [. . .]
What does communism offer instead of these capitalist incentives ?

And, again, the incentives offered in capitalism were also offered in state capitalism. You need to actually grapple with what the Soviet Union was like, and not some bizarro "You had a job for life, and everyone made the same wage, and there were no promotions," version that sounds like a 14-year-old Tankie's vision of what the SU was.

That said, if we want to talk about communism (which I think is important to differentiate sharply), then the incentive for producing is the product. In the context of life without alienation one produces to enjoy what one has produced. This persists in all sorts of activity that remains relatively outside capitalist (re)productive activity. Why do people "jam"? Why do people make nice meals? Why do people build things for themselves? The ends is the thing itself, as an expression of the creative capacities of the person carrying out the activity.

Like, what do you think people did for the majority of human "prehistory"? Just gathered/hunted enough to survive, then lay around in caves for lack of incentive?


And as noble as the goal of communism is, it's clearly been proven as insufficient to motivate most people to do more than the bare minimum.

Eh? Sorry, run that by me again? I don't see where this has been "proved" or even meaningfully approached.


I'm certainly not here to defend capitalism, but in order to defeat it you must understand why it won and is still winning.

I agree. This is a task in which you have failed magnificently by simply restating various cliches of ruling ideology. Capitalism isn't a product of the 'moral failing' of the great masses of humanity. It has a particular historical genesis, proceeding from enclosure, colonialism, etc. Imagining capitalism ahistorically tells us less than nothing.

[AdrianO]

Yet these mechanisms also existed in the state capitalist systems you're referencing. Workers could be (and were) fired in the SU - and what's more, firing could often mean blacklisting (or imprisonment). The assumptions underlying the things you're saying are simply not based in reality. You're operating off of a crude caricature.



And, again, the incentives offered in capitalism were also offered in state capitalism. You need to actually grapple with what the Soviet Union was like, and not some bizarro "You had a job for life, and everyone made the same wage, and there were no promotions," version that sounds like a 14-year-old Tankie's vision of what the SU was.

That said, if we want to talk about communism (which I think is important to differentiate sharply), then the incentive for producing is the product. In the context of life without alienation one produces to enjoy what one has produced. This persists in all sorts of activity that remains relatively outside capitalist (re)productive activity. Why do people "jam"? Why do people make nice meals? Why do people build things for themselves? The ends is the thing itself, as an expression of the creative capacities of the person carrying out the activity.

Like, what do you think people did for the majority of human "prehistory"? Just gathered/hunted enough to survive, then lay around in caves for lack of incentive?



Eh? Sorry, run that by me again? I don't see where this has been "proved" or even meaningfully approached.



I agree. This is a task in which you have failed magnificently by simply restating various cliches of ruling ideology. Capitalism isn't a product of the 'moral failing' of the great masses of humanity. It has a particular historical genesis, proceeding from enclosure, colonialism, etc. Imagining capitalism ahistorically tells us less than nothing.

You don't really get the point do you?
1. My ancestors were promised communism as a goal to work for, as an incentive and it did not work. The idea of communism on its own is not enough to get people working. I don't have to prove it, go buy a history book.

2. Yes certain people could be fired and imprisoned but these were mostly alcoholiccs, degenerates and what they called freeloaders in the SU. I'm not interested in discussing the activities of a minuscule part of that society.
3. You can argue semantics all day of state capitalism vs real communism but that won't change the fact that the Bolshevik Revolution and all the way to Khrushchev had communism as its main goal and promoted it in such way.
Now if I was 200 years old and heard a bunch of people saying "oh no, that wasn't socialism/communism whatever the SU did" I'd think they're idiots who can't learn from past mistakes. There's no shame in acknowledging a fault in the communist ideology.

4. Your product incentive makes it sound like if I want to buy nice shoes, I have to learn how to make them. No thanks, I'd rather take them off the shelves ready made.

5. If you know anything about the transition of hunter gatherers to agriculture then you'll know the answer is yes. Prehistoric people, as we are pretty much today, had the incentive to survive, they wouldn't hunt if they didn't have to, and eventually they left this relatively undesired and dangerous labor for animal domestication and farming, hence why our skeletons have become much lighter than prehistoric people - due to a sedentary lifestyle.

Bottom line, for the most part, people don't want to work for basic life needs. But capitalism forces them into it using a carrot and a stick and so does communism but the carrot in the latter case is never attainable if resources are scarce.

Like I said in an earlier post, 3 points must be eliminated for communism to be attainable.

[Aslan]

1. My ancestors were promised communism as a goal to work for, as an incentive and it did not work. The idea of communism on its own is not enough to get people working. I don't have to prove it, go buy a history book.

The problem with communism is not that it is an impossible goal. But that people are tied through capitalism through superstition and current interests. What we need to do now is to acknowledge that out current system is flawed, and will always be. Then revolution must be done in order to remove this system and build on it.


2. Yes certain people could be fired and imprisoned but these were mostly alcoholiccs, degenerates and what they called freeloaders in the SU. I'm not interested in discussing the activities of a minuscule part of that society.
Ok


3. You can argue semantics all day of state capitalism vs real communism but that won't change the fact that the Bolshevik Revolution and all the way to Khrushchev had communism as its main goal and promoted it in such way.
Now if I was 200 years old and heard a bunch of people saying "oh no, that wasn't socialism/communism whatever the SU did" I'd think they're idiots who can't learn from past mistakes. There's no shame in acknowledging a fault in the communist ideology.

Where did that come from? Sure Lenin and Trotsky wanted to achieve communism but whoever said Stalin or (lol) Khrushchev wanted communism? Not me or anyone around this website from what I know.


4. Your product incentive makes it sound like if I want to buy nice shoes, I have to learn how to make them. No thanks, I'd rather take them off the shelves ready made.

Makes sense, but keep in mind that society will one way or another be completely different once communism comes along. So you could say that robots would do manual labor, and instead people would be focused on maintenance of these machines.


5. If you know anything about the transition of hunter gatherers to agriculture then you'll know the answer is yes. Prehistoric people, as we are pretty much today, had the incentive to survive, they wouldn't hunt if they didn't have to, and eventually they left this relatively undesired and dangerous labor for animal domestication and farming, hence why our skeletons have become much lighter than prehistoric people - due to a sedentary lifestyle.

The argument could be made (Jared Diamond did it) that the Neolithic revolution was the worst thing that ever occurred to humanity. As in hunter-gatherers are shown to be much healthier overall than their agricultural descendants, while also having little war, little disease, family units, more time overall, etc. In fact, hunting wasn't all that dangerous if you were experienced in it. The only reason why the Neolithic revolution occurred was because they wanted a more predictable source of food (crops).


Bottom line, for the most part, people don't want to work for basic life needs. But capitalism forces them into it using a carrot and a stick and so does communism but the carrot in the latter case is never attainable if resources are scarce.

Unfortunately I can't really answer that since I'm not very good with resource scarcity. :unsure:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You're don't really get the point do you?
1. My ancestors were promised communism as a goal to work for, as an incentive and it did not work. The idea of communism on its own is not enough to get people working. I don't have to prove it, go buy a history book.

It's not that I don't "get the point" - it's that the point doesn't line up with reality. We can spend all day on the ideological discourses deployed by various regimes: "One day you'll get communism!" or "One day you'll get a yacht!" The thing is that neither really has any more bearing on reality than "Pie in the sky when you die." In terms of the material conditions of life, the lot of workers in the East and West was a quantitative difference of "more or less consumer goods" - as it remains today - but the qualitative relationship to production was for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. You get up, you go to work, you make a wage, you spend your wages; if you're a "fuck up" you get turfed.


2. Yes certain people could be fired and imprisoned but these were mostly alcoholiccs, degenerates and what they called freeloaders in the SU. I'm not interested in discussing the activities of a minuscule part of that society.

If you believe that, I'm inclined to believe you're something of a sucker. After all, by and large the same narratives are trotted out in the officially capitalist West - "the poor are poor due to their moral failings!" Of course, I would hope everyone on the board has the faculties to dismiss such rightwing nonsense.


3. You can argue semantics all day of state capitalism vs real communism but that won't change the fact that the Bolshevik Revolution and all the way to Khrushchev had communism as its main goal and promoted it in such way.
Now if I was 200 years old and heard a bunch of people saying "oh no, that wasn't socialism/communism whatever the SU did" I'd think they're idiots who can't learn from past mistakes. There's no shame in acknowledging a fault in the communist ideology.

The thing is, that's not what I'm disputing - I don't really care whether or not communism was truly deeply believed in by every last member of the CPSU. I'll even go so far as to say that it likely constituted a "sincere attempt" on the part of a great many people. Of course, sincerity is not a particularly useful means for understanding the economic order of society. In order to learn from past mistakes we need to really understand them, and not just take their ideologues at their word. One doesn't understand the collapse of feudal monarchies by trying to find out what caused God to revoke the divine right of monarchs.


4. Your product incentive makes it sound like if I want to buy nice shoes, I have to learn how to make them. No thanks, I'd rather take them off the shelves ready made.

Well, good for you, but, in any case, your reading is a crappy projection of the individualist ideology of our current order. Throughout human (pre-)history, people have produced collectively, divided tasks, etc. If you want nice shoes, you need to enter into human relations with a shoe maker. What is of concern is the relation of the shoe maker(s) to production, your capacity to enter into relations in such a way as to warrant anyone giving a fuck about whether or not you want nice shoes, etc.


5. If you know anything about the transition of hunter gatherers to agriculture then you'll know the answer is yes. Prehistoric people, as we are pretty much today, had the incentive to survive, they wouldn't hunt if they didn't have to, and eventually they left this relatively undesired and dangerous labor for animal domestication and farming, hence why our skeletons have become much lighter than prehistoric people - due to a sedentary lifestyle.

Uh . . . this is just nonsense. Straight up. Transitions from agriculture to hunter-gathering/slash-and-burn horticulture/etc. and vice versa (yup! happens!) have varied wildly, and been driven by everything from climactic changes to military conquest. And the social/productive lives of non-agricultural peoples (like p. much everyone else) are rich with art, ritual, experimentation, etc. The Hobbesian state of nature was, well, the imagination of a European in the 17th century.


Bottom line, for the most part, people don't want to work for basic life needs. But capitalism forces them into it using a carrot and a stick and so does communism but the carrot in the latter case is never attainable if resources are scarce.

Like I said in an earlier post, 3 points must be eliminated for communism to be attainable.

Kk. I'll accept that I might not win you over on "state capitalism" theoretically - but can you at least clarify when you're speaking about "communism-as-possible-form-of-life" and "communism-on-the-model-of-the-former-Eastern-Bloc"?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Gonna reply to this just to prove I'm not "picking on" AdrianO.


Where did that come from? Sure Lenin and Trotsky wanted to achieve communism but whoever said Stalin or (lol) Khrushchev wanted communism? Not me or anyone around this website from what I know.
I'm willing to say Stalin and Krushchev probably "wanted to acheive communism."
The thing is, I'm concerned with material history, not the desires or ideological outlooks of politicians. All of Stalin or Krushchev's desires matter far less than the real relations of production.


Makes sense, but keep in mind that society will one way or another be completely different once communism comes along. So you could say that robots would do manual labor, and instead people would be focused on maintenance of these machines.
One might also hope that, in a completely different society, this conceptualization of work, the productive needs of society, etc. might be so alien that the old capitalist solution of "build a robot to do it" might be replaced by a broader re-imagining of what ought to be done and how.


The argument could be made (Jared Diamond did it) that the Neolithic revolution was the worst thing that ever occurred to humanity. As in hunter-gatherers are shown to be much healthier overall than their agricultural descendants, while also having little war, little disease, family units, more time overall, etc. In fact, hunting wasn't all that dangerous if you were experienced in it. The only reason why the Neolithic revolution occurred was because they wanted a more predictable source of food (crops).
As per my other post, I think one really needs to avoid generalizations about why/how humanity-writ-large took up agricultural production (and where does one even draw the line? grains?). Since, y'know, non-agricultural peoples persist, various peoples have had "on again off again" relationships with sedentary life, "agriculture" looked very different for the Haudenosaunee than the Egyptians, etc.

[AdrianO]

It's not that I don't "get the point" - it's that the point doesn't line up with reality. We can spend all day on the ideological discourses deployed by various regimes: "One day you'll get communism!" or "One day you'll get a yacht!" The thing is that neither really has any more bearing on reality than "Pie in the sky when you die." In terms of the material conditions of life, the lot of workers in the East and West was a quantitative difference of "more or less consumer goods" - as it remains today - but the qualitative relationship to production was for all intents and purposes indistinguishable. You get up, you go to work, you make a wage, you spend your wages; if you're a "fuck up" you get turfed.
Seems you do get it after all and you've inadvertently proven my point;
Both ideologies, lets name them as you did East and West, are very much the same in practice with a plus to the west on the quantitive side.




If you believe that, I'm inclined to believe you're something of a sucker. After all, by and large the same narratives are trotted out in the officially capitalist West - "the poor are poor due to their moral failings!" Of course, I would hope everyone on the board has the faculties to dismiss such rightwing nonsense.
Irrelevant. Any average person could have a guaranteed job if they wanted to. We are not talking about dissidents or the poor in the SU.





The thing is, that's not what I'm disputing - I don't really care whether or not communism was truly deeply believed in by every last member of the CPSU. I'll even go so far as to say that it likely constituted a "sincere attempt" on the part of a great many people. Of course, sincerity is not a particularly useful means for understanding the economic order of society. In order to learn from past mistakes we need to really understand them, and not just take their ideologues at their word. One doesn't understand the collapse of feudal monarchies by trying to find out what caused God to revoke the divine right of monarchs.
Crude example. But I didn't dismiss communism on the basis that it's godless either. To me communism in practice is nothing more than replacing the capitalist class, with a select workers class. Which in turn turns these workers into a new elite that is no better than the capitalists before them. At the end of the day work needs to be done as you said it yourself, and someone is going to have quantitive and qualitative advantages over another.




Well, good for you, but, in any case, your reading is a crappy projection of the individualist ideology of our current order. Throughout human (pre-)history, people have produced collectively, divided tasks, etc. If you want nice shoes, you need to enter into human relations with a shoe maker. What is of concern is the relation of the shoe maker(s) to production, your capacity to enter into relations in such a way as to warrant anyone giving a fuck about whether or not you want nice shoes, etc.
Reading comprehension can only be as good as writing composition.
That's an outright lie that people are inherently collective minded, but even assuming your lie is a fact about prehistoric people, I'm afraid you can't devolve people to how they were in prehistory. Today we are all individualistic.
If I want something such as nice shoes or whatever, I want to spend the least amount of energy and time to get it. No one is going to do a diplomatic dance to get clothing, food, shelter. Otherwise they leave themselves at the mercy of how much the shoemaker or the farmer likes them.





Uh . . . this is just nonsense. Straight up. Transitions from agriculture to hunter-gathering/slash-and-burn horticulture/etc. and vice versa (yup! happens!) have varied wildly, and been driven by everything from climactic changes to military conquest. And the social/productive lives of non-agricultural peoples (like p. much everyone else) are rich with art, ritual, experimentation, etc. The Hobbesian state of nature was, well, the imagination of a European in the 17th century.
No comment. Read more on prehistory before you decide to quote it to your disadvantage.





Kk. I'll accept that I might not win you over on "state capitalism" theoretically - but can you at least clarify when you're speaking about "communism-as-possible-form-of-life" and "communism-on-the-model-of-the-former-Eastern-Bloc"?
Generally, I always mean the eastern bloc. That's one of the few of not the only example of a serious attempt to achieve communism.
What I'd like to see different from the traditional classist struggle that Marx harped about, is a way to eliminate this struggle. Not in favor of one party over the other, but to eliminate the whole reason for struggle.
This can be achieved through a global investment in science and technology, but the capitalists would not allow it, it would mean money becoming worthless if there was no more scarcity or need to perform undesired labor.

[Ele'ill]

there's not a lack of incentive there's a lack of coercion and thus would probably look like rupture, a major transformation, go figure

[AdrianO]

there's not a lack of incentive there's a lack of coercion and thus would probably look like rupture, a major transformation, go figure
That is true. It is not only coercion, but also bribery.
But alas labor slavery didn't disappear, not in the USSR, not in nazi Germany, not in the 'free' west. All have failed.

[AdrianO]

The problem with communism is not that it is an impossible goal. But that people are tied through capitalism through superstition and current interests. What we need to do now is to acknowledge that out current system is flawed, and will always be. Then revolution must be done in order to remove this system and build on it.


Ok



Where did that come from? Sure Lenin and Trotsky wanted to achieve communism but whoever said Stalin or (lol) Khrushchev wanted communism? Not me or anyone around this website from what I know.



Makes sense, but keep in mind that society will one way or another be completely different once communism comes along. So you could say that robots would do manual labor, and instead people would be focused on maintenance of these machines.



The argument could be made (Jared Diamond did it) that the Neolithic revolution was the worst thing that ever occurred to humanity. As in hunter-gatherers are shown to be much healthier overall than their agricultural descendants, while also having little war, little disease, family units, more time overall, etc. In fact, hunting wasn't all that dangerous if you were experienced in it. The only reason why the Neolithic revolution occurred was because they wanted a more predictable source of food (crops).



Unfortunately I can't really answer that since I'm not very good with resource scarcity. :unsure:
I agree that all systems that have been tried and in place at the moment are flawed. Some more flawed than others.
I believe that machines are the future and not only machines, but also the ability to make products using relatively no resources.
While Marxists focus on he proletariat struggle against the capitalists, they forget that as long as we are stagnant in science and technology as we are now (smartphones and consumer garbage doesn't count as progress), there will always be struggle for the same resources. Today's capitalists were yesterday's proletariat, and todays proletariat will be tomorrow's capitalists.
It's a zero sum game.

[cyu]

Technology improves access to resources. But there is still a zero sum game in terms of power - there is only so much power to go around - under a capitalist system, most of the power is taken by those who have money to spend (and therefore dictate what people do on a daily basis).

When political, military, or economic power is concentrated, the result is lots of resources are allocated toward what the powerful want, and great scarcity of resources for those who have no power. The starvation we see under capitalism isn't a result of real scarcity of food, but rather an artificial scarcity of resources resulting from the rich taking up all the productive power of an economy, leaving very little left to produce for the poor.

In other words, there is no real scarcity, except the artificial scarcity created by capitalism itself.

[ckaihatsu]

What you see on the graph is when the capitalists have become increasingly greedy after the disspation of the socialist threat.


Ironically what many comrades at RevLeft often fail to see / mention is the *historic decline in class struggle* that correlates to that explosive increase in productivity -- in other words the rise in productivity is due in large part to the increased exploitation of the world's labor force from the mid-'70s onward, by class violence against unions, union organizing, etc.





Not all people care or want prosperity for everyone other than themselves, that is a core human trait - selfishness.


'Selfishness' is the result of overexposure -- a much better term would be 'self-directedness', meaning that people want self-determinism for their own lives, but this *doesn't* automatically imply 'hoarding every bit of exchange value that can be opportunistically obtained, from cradle to grave', as 'selfishness' implies.

A collectivist / communistic social order would certainly value 'prosperity of opportunities for life experiences', by supplying appropriate materials in sufficient common quantities, over 'prosperity of individualistic control over material means for life experiences'.





Very good! I agree with every word. Except, this doesn't solve the problem of undesired labor. If I'm free to do whatever I desire as work, without having to worry about my basic shelter and food, who would be picking up the trash, or laying bricks in cold weather, or even staring and meaningless spreadsheets in an office?
I think communism needs reform to be able to give a serious answer to these questions and put an end to modern slavery that is capitalism.


I happen to agree with this point, and will note that for any given range of 'socially necessary tasks' (those formally put forth as being personally required) there will undoubtedly / inevitably be a subset of these tasks that will go *unfulfilled* if everyone is able to just freely, voluntarily choose which tasks to do and how much of them. And this goes even in a feasibly fully-automated kind of post-capitalist society, too, where perhaps some kinds of social-implementation / 'programming' tasks would be widely seen as more-distasteful and less desirable than other kinds.

Fortunately I've addressed this topic thoroughly with a non-commodity 'labor credits' model that I developed:


A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)





What does communism offer instead of these capitalist incentives ? You get a job for life no matter what, and you can continue to slack just as you did under capitalism, except this time you aren't really worried about losing your job or ending up homeless, so you get by with doing even less than the minimum.
And as noble as the goal of communism is, it's clearly been proven as insufficient to motivate most people to do more than the bare minimum.


This is a form of *idealism*, though, because you're treating '[bulk] labor' and 'a minimum of labor' in a *fixed*, *abstract* way.

We don't know ahead-of-time whether a post-capitalist society of 'minimal voluntary liberated labor' would or would not be sufficient for a *humane* society.

The point of such a society wouldn't be 'a job for life', it would be more about 'a humane material existence for life', whatever levels of labor inputs such a society like that would objectively require from everyone, more-or-less.

Moreover, perhaps such a society found itself to be relatively *satisfied* with a humane state of being that happened to be *possible* from a 'bare minimum' from everyone, while maybe some sparse subset of the population did more socially- and technologically-ambitious things, freely, on relatively *marginal* / modest scales.

We can't pre-judge in advance whether this kind of world would be 'acceptable' or not, because it would ultimately be up to the actual people of that world -- as long as exploitation and oppression had been decisively eliminated.





For all of us to prosper and remove the elites, I think 3 issues must be solved first:
1. The problem of resource scarcity.


This is another 'abstract', and is perenially a red herring to the revolutionary position:

Which resources -- ? How is 'scarcity' defined -- ?

The easy quick clarifying response here is to just note that 'scarcity' is a *blanket* term, and 'scarcity' needs to first be addressed on a *per-item* basis.





2. Abolishing/automating all labor types deemed as undesirable and/or ineffective to human advancement.


Sure, revolutionaries are certainly open to full technological development that benefits everyone on an equitable basis -- something that's *impossible* under capitalism due to the persistence / maintaining of the exchange-value paradigm.





3. Total abolishment of money, wages, and even bartering of goods.


This is compatible with revolution, too, but of more importance is the question / issue of how *control* would be instituted, once exchange values are put aside for good.





One might also hope that, in a completely different society, this conceptualization of work, the productive needs of society, etc. might be so alien that the old capitalist solution of "build a robot to do it" might be replaced by a broader re-imagining of what ought to be done and how.


Just as an illustrative exercise we might imagine that all basic necessary materials, like shoes, would simply become easily 'd.i.y.', like some kind of spray-on material goo, applied directly onto one's feet, that can then be individually cut and shaped according to one's liking (and pre-defined molds would be available, too).





To me communism in practice is nothing more than replacing the capitalist class, with a select workers class. Which in turn turns these workers into a new elite that is no better than the capitalists before them. At the end of the day work needs to be done as you said it yourself, and someone is going to have quantitive and qualitative advantages over another.


This is empirically incorrect -- 'class' implies 'a divergence of objective interests', as over the surplus labor value from the products of labor.

Workers alone, without an exploiting (capitalist) class, *cannot* be a 'class', because if there's only workers, there's no separate elite, with the privileges of private property, in existence to *exploit* the workers.

[AdrianO]

Ironically what many comrades at RevLeft often fail to see / mention is the *historic decline in class struggle* that correlates to that explosive increase in productivity -- in other words the rise in productivity is due in large part to the increased exploitation of the world's labor force from the mid-'70s onward, by class violence against unions, union organizing, etc.
Agreed. More exploitation and less cost for the capitalist.







'Selfishness' is the result of overexposure -- a much better term would be 'self-directedness', meaning that people want self-determinism for their own lives, but this *doesn't* automatically imply 'hoarding every bit of exchange value that can be opportunistically obtained, from cradle to grave', as 'selfishness' implies.


A collectivist / communistic social order would certainly value 'prosperity of opportunities for life experiences', by supplying appropriate materials in sufficient common quantities, over 'prosperity of individualistic control over material means for life experiences'.

Also agreed.





I happen to agree with this point, and will note that for any given range of 'socially necessary tasks' (those formally put forth as being personally required) there will undoubtedly / inevitably be a subset of these tasks that will go *unfulfilled* if everyone is able to just freely, voluntarily choose which tasks to do and how much of them. And this goes even in a feasibly fully-automated kind of post-capitalist society, too, where perhaps some kinds of social-implementation / 'programming' tasks would be widely seen as more-distasteful and less desirable than other kinds.

Fortunately I've addressed this topic thoroughly with a non-commodity 'labor credits' model that I developed:


A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'





I'm still trying to get my head around this graph. But generally, this is why I believe a scientific revolution is needed. A revolution that focuses on diverting labor and resources to technology development to help automate all these undesirable tasks, and allow people to have freewill in their engagements.
Now, what I really do NOT appreciate is how the Marxist ideology focuses on simple transfer of ownership of the machines(aka means of production) to laborers. It doesn't solve the problem and at the end of the day people will still be forced to do what they don't want to do, just as it is now under capitalism.







This is a form of *idealism*, though, because you're treating '[bulk] labor' and 'a minimum of labor' in a *fixed*, *abstract* way.

We don't know ahead-of-time whether a post-capitalist society of 'minimal voluntary liberated labor' would or would not be sufficient for a *humane* society.

The point of such a society wouldn't be 'a job for life', it would be more about 'a humane material existence for life', whatever levels of labor inputs such a society like that would objectively require from everyone, more-or-less.

Moreover, perhaps such a society found itself to be relatively *satisfied* with a humane state of being that happened to be *possible* from a 'bare minimum' from everyone, while maybe some sparse subset of the population did more socially- and technologically-ambitious things, freely, on relatively *marginal* / modest scales.

We can't pre-judge in advance whether this kind of world would be 'acceptable' or not, because it would ultimately be up to the actual people of that world -- as long as exploitation and oppression had been decisively eliminated.

I was referring to the Soviet attempt at communism. The point was, as propaganda, something new other than communism must be offered to the people. Eastern Europe is traumatized and regards the soviets in the same way others regard Nazi Germany. I would advocate an ideology based on labor liberation through science and technology and try to make it appealing to the people, while considering and drawing lessons of what went wrong with the Soviet attempt at Communism.






This is another 'abstract', and is perenially a red herring to the revolutionary position:

Which resources -- ? How is 'scarcity' defined -- ?

The easy quick clarifying response here is to just note that 'scarcity' is a *blanket* term, and 'scarcity' needs to first be addressed on a *per-item* basis.

Scarcity of fertile land.
Scarcity of water.
Scarcity of resources necessary to make different kinds of fuel.
There are just examples. While I do realize that scarcity can be a capitalist machination, but for some resources it is real.
Currently in its infancy, but matter has been created out of photons. I believe this is something a new revolution should focus on developing to solve some of these issues. (see the Breit Wheeler thread in this section)







Sure, revolutionaries are certainly open to full technological development that benefits everyone on an equitable basis -- something that's *impossible* under capitalism due to the persistence / maintaining of the exchange-value paradigm.


I'm tired of seeing useless technology and inventions that are made for the one purpose of subjugation and total transformation of the population into mindless consumers.
This is why I believe capitalists are dangerous not only to laborers but to themselves, they are the cause of our technological stagnation as a species. And they will keep it this way for generations and generations.
The irony is these criminals think they are the bringers of civilization in the form of jobs and wealth-making technologies.
Why should treatment of terminal diseases be accessible only to the wealthy? Why should scientists be restricted in research in various fields due to low financing, while Facebook gets billions of dollars in an IPO?
I think you see where I'm going with this.





This is compatible with revolution, too, but of more importance is the question / issue of how *control* would be instituted, once exchange values are put aside for good.

Ideally, if the resources problem is solved, and labor is no longer necessary to produce most kinds of goods, there will be no need of control except for standard capital crimes. Maybe you meant some other type of control?







This is empirically incorrect -- 'class' implies 'a divergence of objective interests', as over the surplus labor value from the products of labor.

Workers alone, without an exploiting (capitalist) class, *cannot* be a 'class', because if there's only workers, there's no separate elite, with the privileges of private property, in existence to *exploit* the workers.
There will always be a 'class' if two or more parties are fighting over the same thing.
If workers alone existed, you can imagine them forming oligarchies, unions, syndicates (whatever you want to call them) to gain bargaining power over other workers.
If labor is fully abolished and gives way to technology, then we wouldn't need to have any sort of struggle, since theoretically and for example, I'll be able to get myself whatever I need with a push of a button, and I'll be free to work on the things that I like, not for material profit, but for self-fulfillment.

[ckaihatsu]

Agreed. More exploitation and less cost for the capitalist.




Also agreed.




I'm still trying to get my head around this graph. But generally, this is why I believe a scientific revolution is needed. A revolution that focuses on diverting labor and resources to technology development to help automate all these undesirable tasks, and allow people to have freewill in their engagements.
Now, what I really do NOT appreciate is how the Marxist ideology focuses on simple transfer of ownership of the machines(aka means of production) to laborers. It doesn't solve the problem and at the end of the day people will still be forced to do what they don't want to do, just as it is now under capitalism.


The 'simple transfer of ownership [control] of the machines to laborers' accomplishes the obliteration of the class divide, so that there's no longer an *objective* difference of interests between those who do the 'managing' (ownership) and those who do the laboring (working class). This would decisively abolish labor *exploitation*, as through capitalist economics, and also any *oppression*, through institutional racism / sexism / etc., due to divide-and-conquer strategies used by the capitalist class, as clearly seen in slavery and colonialism, etc.

So this is to say that a proletarian (class) revolution is objectively *required*, independently of whatever scientific booms such a social revolution would also enable.

Your observation that 'diverting labor and resources to technology development to help automate all these undesirable tasks, and allow people to have freewill in their engagements' is accurate, but it *has* to go hand-in-glove with the *social* revolution, because currently private ownership is the institution that directly benefits from technological progress, or even just the *illusion* of it, as you've noted later in your post.

You're distrustful of the social order that a proletarian revolution would bring around, preferring to posit that a technologically enabled workers society would somehow self-oppress -- this point of yours is unclear, and you may want to elaborate on it for the sake of clarity.

(In other words your position seems to be *self-contradictory* -- that people would benefit from free mass availability of technology to eliminate all drudgery, but the same people would somehow 'oppress' each other in spite of this liberating technology.)





I was referring to the Soviet attempt at communism. The point was, as propaganda, something new other than communism must be offered to the people. Eastern Europe is traumatized and regards the soviets in the same way others regard Nazi Germany. I would advocate an ideology based on labor liberation through science and technology and try to make it appealing to the people, while considering and drawing lessons of what went wrong with the Soviet attempt at Communism.


I really don't think that revolutionaries today should feel at all 'responsible' or 'beholden' to the Cold-War-type 'communism' of the previous century -- it's very doubtful that those Soviet regimes even had 'proletarian self-liberation' in their agendas during their time in power, anyway. My general position on such is the following, from a recent post at another thread:





I don't think we can see post-Bolshevik 'communism' -- in whatever country or variant -- as being a 'failure', but more as a 'holding pattern' at least, and, at best, as being the worldwide struggle against imperialism that was the postwar ('Cold War') era.

Should we be surprised that the nominally 'collectivized' country of the USSR played a more active role politically on the world stage (geopolitically) than it did in any sense of advancing the interests of the proletariat -- ? I would say that its geopolitical identity in that era and *defense* of any revolutionary gains was the source of its *cohesion* as a political / national / social entity -- also meaning that such is *too passive* to be more proactive, as for revolutionary *gains*.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2866177&postcount=55


---





Scarcity of fertile land.
Scarcity of water.
Scarcity of resources necessary to make different kinds of fuel.
There are just examples. While I do realize that scarcity can be a capitalist machination, but for some resources it is real.
Currently in its infancy, but matter has been created out of photons. I believe this is something a new revolution should focus on developing to solve some of these issues. (see the Breit Wheeler thread in this section)


I would argue that this is practically making a *fetish* out of technology, which would be putting-the-cart-before-the-horse -- wouldn't a *social* revolution, to abolish the classes, then, be roundly more efficacious, since the 'scarcities' you're listing aren't *empirical* scarcities, but rather are *artificial* scarcities based on how existing resources / technologies are socially distributed -- ?





I'm tired of seeing useless technology and inventions that are made for the one purpose of subjugation and total transformation of the population into mindless consumers.
This is why I believe capitalists are dangerous not only to laborers but to themselves, they are the cause of our technological stagnation as a species. And they will keep it this way for generations and generations.
The irony is these criminals think they are the bringers of civilization in the form of jobs and wealth-making technologies.
Why should treatment of terminal diseases be accessible only to the wealthy? Why should scientists be restricted in research in various fields due to low financing, while Facebook gets billions of dollars in an IPO?
I think you see where I'm going with this.


Based on *this* statement I don't see why you'd have the least reservation to a *working class* revolution, then, to *overthrow* such elitist rule.





Ideally, if the resources problem is solved, and labor is no longer necessary to produce most kinds of goods, there will be no need of control except for standard capital crimes. Maybe you meant some other type of control?


Well, from the beginning of your post, you're indicating doubts that a post-class-divide, workers-only type of society would be able to self-manage itself. While I'm fully appreciative of the liberating potential of technology, there would still conceivably be the issue of the *social* question -- would a class-liberated humanity simply immediately break apart into 'geographical' factions and instantly go to war over existing 'liberated' terrain -- ? (If not, then how would such a society *organize* itself, in more-*enlightened* ways -- ?)





There will always be a 'class' if two or more parties are fighting over the same thing.
If workers alone existed, you can imagine them forming oligarchies, unions, syndicates (whatever you want to call them) to gain bargaining power over other workers.
If labor is fully abolished and gives way to technology, then we wouldn't need to have any sort of struggle, since theoretically and for example, I'll be able to get myself whatever I need with a push of a button, and I'll be free to work on the things that I like, not for material profit, but for self-fulfillment.


So you're indicating here that it's a matter of *scale* -- if personal self-directed interests can be fulfilled by the individual themselves then there would *be no* 'social', 'labor-factional' issue even empirically possible.

I'm inclined to agree here -- if '3D printing' could potentially satisfy virtually every material want -- but if some kind of empirical *collectivism* of effort was still required in a post-capitalist futuristic society, I wouldn't be as pessimistic as you are about such a society being able to act truly cooperatively, once class exploitation and oppression is definitively superseded.

[Alet]

I agree with you that social meaning should be given to labor, but that will never happen when you can't provide shelter and security for yourself and family.
There is no point in selling empty dreams to people when they are struggling to put food on the table. Basic Maslow theory.

I don't get your point. Of course, if one is deprived of the means to live properly in a society, they are not willing to sacrifice themselves for the collective. But why do you think that this is an argument against communism? After all, this is a matter of (private) property, which we seek to abolish.


In my opinion, communism starts on the wrong foot, by playing within the game created by capitalists.

This is not a "game", this is real fucking life. We don't get to choose the conditions to begin with. Communism is, in essence, not a cheap abstraction, i.e. a future society with all its fancy features, but a process or movement - the negation of the present state of things. The here and now is an axiom, it's our reference point from which we evaluate history and strive for the future. There is no point of communism without capitalism.


1. The problem of resource scarcity.

The thing is that you recognize this as a problem only in relation to capitalism. Resource scarcity refers to the inability to distribute goods under the consumption standards of present-day society. But not only will communism crush consumerist hedonism, not only do we have "hope" (I couldn't find a better word) in future technologies, also a planned economy will be able to manage and overcome resource scarcity far better than the necessity of capital accumulation ever could.


2. Abolishing/automating all labor types deemed as undesirable and/or ineffective to human advancement.

This is exactly what I adressed in the post you quoted. WHY are certain labor types deemed as undesirable? Just because they are at the present, they don't have to. This is what I mean by giving labor a social dimension where an economic reward was necessary. And, frankly, this is not an issue to be solved "first" - after all, I'm explaining why it's in fact not an issue, at least not for communists. We wouldn't even argue here, if it was not controversial that we have to abolish "all labor types deemed as undesirable". But I state that we don't have to.

What do you mean by "human advancement"? Individual advancement or advancement of humanity in general?


3. Total abolishment of money, wages, and even bartering of goods.

This is exactly what communism is about (or at least necessarily implies). You seem to confuse communism with state-capitalist planned economy.

[ckaihatsu]

WHY are certain labor types deemed as undesirable? Just because they are at the present, they don't have to.


I find this line to be disingenuous, no matter who it's from -- no one should pretend that all kinds of work will just magically become 'okay' if society is reorganized so that shitwork is shared equally, done in a rotation, or whatever.





[A] great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.




https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/wilde-oscar/soul-man/

[Alet]

I find this line to be disingenuous, no matter who it's from -- no one should pretend that all kinds of work will just magically become 'okay' if society is reorganized so that shitwork is shared equally, done in a rotation, or whatever.

Don't get me wrong - my point is not to force people to enjoy every kind of work. If we can replace exhausting work by machines, why not? The thing is still that people don't refuse to work for the sake of it, this is, in the last instance, a social choice. That is to say, even if a specific kind of work by itself might not be pleasurable, in a communist society people will be willing to do it for the greater good. No magic involved, only discipline - it is merely the logical conclusion of a solidary society. There will not be an economic incentive as it will not be needed.

[ckaihatsu]

Don't get me wrong - my point is not to force people to enjoy every kind of work. If we can replace exhausting work by machines, why not?


Yes, agreed.





The thing is still that people don't refuse to work for the sake of it, this is, in the last instance, a social choice.


Yes, it *would* necessarily / automatically be a social *action* for someone in a post-capitalist society to say 'I don't want to work' (while today plenty of people *don't* have to contribute to social productivity because they can live off of accumulated exchange value / wealth) -- but I eschew all moralism as it relates to political economy: Even if a *majority* of the population post-capitalism says 'I don't want to work', that fact should then have to be taken at face-value and the resulting society would be what it is with that factor present. (Perhaps enough people *would* want to work for the common good, and machinery would leverage that effort immensely so that everyone lives comfortably.)

I'm always suspicious of any 'work for work's sake' ethos -- while I understand that the maintenance and progress of society are crucial, even those constants don't automatically translate into 'everyone must work 40-hour weeks, 50 weeks out of the year, from 18 to 65, no matter what'.

A socialist society is supposed to be *co-created* by everyone, so that matters of work, and what it goes for, would be proactively dealt with by all in collectively 'hands-on' ways, with social implications for all.





That is to say, even if a specific kind of work by itself might not be pleasurable, in a communist society people will be willing to do it for the greater good. No magic involved, only discipline - it is merely the logical conclusion of a solidary society. There will not be an economic incentive as it will not be needed.


Basically agreed, but I'll also refer back to your initial statement that 'If we can replace exhausting work by machines, why not?'.

[Alet]

I'm always suspicious of any 'work for work's sake' ethos -- while I understand that the maintenance and progress of society are crucial, even those constants don't automatically translate into 'everyone must work 40-hour weeks, 50 weeks out of the year, from 18 to 65, no matter what'.

Please remember the context in which I have stated my position. The OP explicitly asked how a communist economy can run without economic incentives. I'm not advocating a "'work for work's sake' ethos" here, nor do I insist on capitalist working time standards. The point is that economic incentives are not necessary because man is a greedy creature - instead, they belong to capitalist society in order to sustain it for they are not constituted by natural instincts but by nothing else than the social dimension. I do support technological advancement and abolishment of exhausting work. What I'm saying is that, as long as it is socially necessary, work will be done in a communist society, no matter what.

[ckaihatsu]

That is to say, even if a specific kind of work by itself might not be pleasurable, in a communist society people will be willing to do it for the greater good. No magic involved, only discipline - it is merely the logical conclusion of a solidary society. There will not be an economic incentive as it will not be needed.


To address this point of yours in a more-focused way, I have to start by noting that it's rather *vague* -- sure 'solidarity' is great, and needed, but how *might* a communist / socialist society tackle work roles that are *not* pleasurable (therefore meaning that people would intrinsically eschew them, and that those work roles would be objectively degrading) -- ?

I'll reintroduce the following, with a scenario afterwards....





[I'll] note that for any given range of 'socially necessary tasks' (those formally put forth as being personally required) there will undoubtedly / inevitably be a subset of these tasks that will go *unfulfilled* if everyone is able to just freely, voluntarily choose which tasks to do and how much of them. And this goes even in a feasibly fully-automated kind of post-capitalist society, too, where perhaps some kinds of social-implementation / 'programming' tasks would be widely seen as more-distasteful and less desirable than other kinds.


So let's say that, post-capitalism, it's scientifically determined that one type of landfill (garbage dump) used all over the world tends to leach certain bad chemicals into the environment -- fortunately there's a known mechanical way to address this kind of problem, but it still remains to be *implemented*, and needs to be implemented *everywhere* so that no geographical location is disadvantaged in any way.

Let's say that not even *1* person needs to touch garbage, but the *programming* for robot-type machines to make the necessary 'garbage processing' machines would need to be done, and no one in post-capitalist society really *wants* to do this kind of task because it's not really intrinsically *pleasurable* -- what then -- ?

(Would there be an economic 'differential' in existence here, or not -- ?)

[ckaihatsu]

Please remember the context in which I have stated my position. The OP explicitly asked how a communist economy can run without economic incentives. I'm not advocating a "'work for work's sake' ethos" here, nor do I insist on capitalist working time standards. The point is that economic incentives are not necessary because man is a greedy creature - instead, they belong to capitalist society in order to sustain it for they are not constituted by natural instincts but by nothing else than the social dimension. I do support technological advancement and abolishment of exhausting work. What I'm saying is that, as long as it is socially necessary, work will be done in a communist society, no matter what.


Okay, acknowledged.

[AdrianO]

The 'simple transfer of ownership [control] of the machines to laborers' accomplishes the obliteration of the class divide, so that there's no longer an *objective* difference of interests between those who do the 'managing' (ownership) and those who do the laboring (working class). This would decisively abolish labor *exploitation*, as through capitalist economics, and also any *oppression*, through institutional racism / sexism / etc., due to divide-and-conquer strategies used by the capitalist class, as clearly seen in slavery and colonialism, etc.

So this is to say that a proletarian (class) revolution is objectively *required*, independently of whatever scientific booms such a social revolution would also enable.

Your observation that 'diverting labor and resources to technology development to help automate all these undesirable tasks, and allow people to have freewill in their engagements' is accurate, but it *has* to go hand-in-glove with the *social* revolution, because currently private ownership is the institution that directly benefits from technological progress, or even just the *illusion* of it, as you've noted later in your post.

You're distrustful of the social order that a proletarian revolution would bring around, preferring to posit that a technologically enabled workers society would somehow self-oppress -- this point of yours is unclear, and you may want to elaborate on it for the sake of clarity.

(In other words your position seems to be *self-contradictory* -- that people would benefit from free mass availability of technology to eliminate all drudgery, but the same people would somehow 'oppress' each other in spite of this liberating technology.)

I really don't think that revolutionaries today should feel at all 'responsible' or 'beholden' to the Cold-War-type 'communism' of the previous century -- it's very doubtful that those Soviet regimes even had 'proletarian self-liberation' in their agendas during their time in power, anyway. My general position on such is the following, from a recent post at another thread:

You hit the nail on the head. I am, and a great many are, indeed very distrustful. There are too many atrocities that have been committed in the name of communism.
You should watch a Russian movie about the 1917 revolution called The Checkist (it's on youtube with english subs) to see the origin of my distrust.
And on this very sub-forum, there's already a thread about murdering counter-revolutionaries even before any 2nd revolution taking place, so it seems that 'new revolutionaries' are very susceptible to the methods of the old ones.
On another note however, from a strictly propaganda point of view, I don't see Communism uniting workers under it's banner again for the reasons mentioned above, at least not in the foreseeable future.
That is why I advocate a different ideology based on say 'Liberation through Science & Technology'. An ideology that would focus not only on economic fairness, but also giving people a new purpose to live for, to counter the negative influence of religion, assuming that we become advanced enough to abolish labor. But this part is for another discussion.




I would argue that this is practically making a *fetish* out of technology, which would be putting-the-cart-before-the-horse -- wouldn't a *social* revolution, to abolish the classes, then, be roundly more efficacious, since the 'scarcities' you're listing aren't *empirical* scarcities, but rather are *artificial* scarcities based on how existing resources / technologies are socially distributed -- ?
Some of the scarcities I listed are empirical. Water is a limited resource, so are rare minerals and metals.
Some kind of revolution has to take place to overthrow the capitalists, I'm however very wary of people in power (especially ones with less experience than the capitalists, as much as I despise them) and for good reason as mentioned above.
How can be it guaranteed the revolution won't go foul again?


Well, from the beginning of your post, you're indicating doubts that a post-class-divide, workers-only type of society would be able to self-manage itself. While I'm fully appreciative of the liberating potential of technology, there would still conceivably be the issue of the *social* question -- would a class-liberated humanity simply immediately break apart into 'geographical' factions and instantly go to war over existing 'liberated' terrain -- ? (If not, then how would such a society *organize* itself, in more-*enlightened* ways -- ?)
Theoretically, technology should be shared at no cost with all humanity. People would be free to create art, better machines, better research, better medicine. They'll not be coerced into a specific job. I think it's clear that most of us are inclined to do one or a few things that we enjoy and we would have nothing to limit us from doing and working on those things.
For example: I like sailing and boats, I would enjoy learning how to make better vessels and continuously improve my invention without having to worry about costs other than my time.
Some people are inclined to do other things obviously like being doctors, or teachers.
Does this answer your question?




So you're indicating here that it's a matter of *scale* -- if personal self-directed interests can be fulfilled by the individual themselves then there would *be no* 'social', 'labor-factional' issue even empirically possible.

I'm inclined to agree here -- if '3D printing' could potentially satisfy virtually every material want -- but if some kind of empirical *collectivism* of effort was still required in a post-capitalist futuristic society, I wouldn't be as pessimistic as you are about such a society being able to act truly cooperatively, once class exploitation and oppression is definitively superseded.

I wish I could be more optimistic, but humans are known to cooperate efficiently in crisis. I won't deny people cooperate for other reasons, it's just extremely difficult to have every person cooperating with you. Killing who doesn't cooperate is not an outcome I will ever condone.


I don't get your point. Of course, if one is deprived of the means to live properly in a society, they are not willing to sacrifice themselves for the collective. But why do you think that this is an argument against communism? After all, this is a matter of (private) property, which we seek to abolish.



This is not a "game", this is real fucking life. We don't get to choose the conditions to begin with. Communism is, in essence, not a cheap abstraction, i.e. a future society with all its fancy features, but a process or movement - the negation of the present state of things. The here and now is an axiom, it's our reference point from which we evaluate history and strive for the future. There is no point of communism without capitalism.



The thing is that you recognize this as a problem only in relation to capitalism. Resource scarcity refers to the inability to distribute goods under the consumption standards of present-day society. But not only will communism crush consumerist hedonism, not only do we have "hope" (I couldn't find a better word) in future technologies, also a planned economy will be able to manage and overcome resource scarcity far better than the necessity of capital accumulation ever could.



This is exactly what I adressed in the post you quoted. WHY are certain labor types deemed as undesirable? Just because they are at the present, they don't have to. This is what I mean by giving labor a social dimension where an economic reward was necessary. And, frankly, this is not an issue to be solved "first" - after all, I'm explaining why it's in fact not an issue, at least not for communists. We wouldn't even argue here, if it was not controversial that we have to abolish "all labor types deemed as undesirable". But I state that we don't have to.

What do you mean by "human advancement"? Individual advancement or advancement of humanity in general?



This is exactly what communism is about (or at least necessarily implies). You seem to confuse communism with state-capitalist planned economy.
As far as your first point, it's an argument against the 'banner' of communism that what used by the SU, and ultimately failed to provide for its people. It is the only serious attempt at Communism and shouldn't be dismissed simply as 'state capitalism' or whatever.
I think I addressed most of your other points replying to ckaihatsu, and garbagedisposal. If I missed anything please ask again.
I meant the advancement of humanity as a whole.

[Remus Bleys]

This is probably a question that has been dwelt over several times on this and other forums,

unfortunately yes

nevertheless there is always a new lesson to learn.

no


Economists often attribute the failure of Soviet socialism/communism (whatever you want to call it), is due to the lack of economic incentive
economists are dumb quacks

(i.e greed).
what

For example, why would a worker make a better product, if his wealth will remain the same whether he excelled at his work, or slacked and pretended to be busy? The answer to most people will obviously to get by with the least amount of work for the same reward.

Then america would fail. This is not how most people think


Now what I'd like to know is, how would a communist state address this lack of incentive, or in other words, the greed that economists think is the driving force behind doing a better job?

its not a relevant quesiton. its built on false premises

[ckaihatsu]

You hit the nail on the head. I am, and a great many are, indeed very distrustful. There are too many atrocities that have been committed in the name of communism.


Well, for whatever it's worth, the late 19th century and early 20th century was also a period of *industrialization*, so there was a lot at stake, at the time of 'growing pains' for the Western / modern world -- I tend to see the present era as much less 'up for grabs' and probably more quiescent and conducive to a globally level-headed tackling of this whole 'class' issue.





You should watch a Russian movie about the 1917 revolution called The Checkist (it's on youtube with english subs) to see the origin of my distrust.


Hey, if it hasn't been made into a movie it's just not worth knowing about...(!) (grin)





And on this very sub-forum, there's already a thread about murdering counter-revolutionaries even before any 2nd revolution taking place, so it seems that 'new revolutionaries' are very susceptible to the methods of the old ones.
On another note however, from a strictly propaganda point of view, I don't see Communism uniting workers under it's banner again for the reasons mentioned above, at least not in the foreseeable future.
That is why I advocate a different ideology based on say 'Liberation through Science & Technology'. An ideology that would focus not only on economic fairness, but also giving people a new purpose to live for, to counter the negative influence of religion, assuming that we become advanced enough to abolish labor. But this part is for another discussion.


I'll maintain that you're attempting to *sidestep* the social question by 'deifying' the *technical* one, which is definitely a dodge. You're essentially flirting with 'technocracy' -- which is socially problematic because it posits a social hierarchy of work / oversight positions dealing with technical / engineering matters, which would be distinct and separate from the general population, and also presumably from non-technically-oriented workers.





Some of the scarcities I listed are empirical. Water is a limited resource, so are rare minerals and metals.


'Limited' is not the same as 'scarce'.

And, more to the point, then, how would you propose to deal with the social distribution of materially-limited quantities -- ?





Some kind of revolution has to take place to overthrow the capitalists, I'm however very wary of people in power (especially ones with less experience than the capitalists, as much as I despise them) and for good reason as mentioned above.
How can be it guaranteed the revolution won't go foul again?


Well, that's basically why you and I are here -- again, my own proposal is at post #36.





Theoretically, technology should be shared at no cost with all humanity. People would be free to create art, better machines, better research, better medicine. They'll not be coerced into a specific job. I think it's clear that most of us are inclined to do one or a few things that we enjoy and we would have nothing to limit us from doing and working on those things.
For example: I like sailing and boats, I would enjoy learning how to make better vessels and continuously improve my invention without having to worry about costs other than my time.
Some people are inclined to do other things obviously like being doctors, or teachers.
Does this answer your question?


Well, my abiding concern, though, is about 'matching' people's own volitions to the more-objective overall social *needs* for whatever -- 'socially necessary labor'. (A.k.a., any unaddressed 'shitwork' issue, as in my scenario at post #44.)





I wish I could be more optimistic, but humans are known to cooperate efficiently in crisis. I won't deny people cooperate for other reasons, it's just extremely difficult to have every person cooperating with you. Killing who doesn't cooperate is not an outcome I will ever condone.


You're obviously concerned with matters of 'power structure' and typical conventional 'in-faction, out-faction' politics.

It's understandable, but I'll contend that most here at RevLeft address revolutionary issues in a very egalitarian, systematic, scientific way so that a contemporary global revolution could readily take place coherently, if unopposed.

[Remus Bleys]

ckhaistu when you do the ** or the '' over everything I imagine that you are saying this and oddly emphasizing certain words for no reason. Its extraordinarily offputting, and you shouldn't do it.

[ckaihatsu]

ckhaistu when you do the ** or the '' over everything I imagine that you are saying this and oddly emphasizing certain words for no reason. Its extraordinarily offputting, and you shouldn't do it.


You obviously got into politics for the *social engineering* aspect -- good luck with that.

[Remus Bleys]

You obviously got into politics for the *social engineering* aspect -- good luck with that.

what the fuck does this even mean, and no i didnt get into politics, I got into math and physics. Unlike you, I decided to roll with what i can actually understand

[Remus Bleys]

if ckhaistu is an admin i should also be an admin.

[ckaihatsu]

what the fuck does this even mean, and no i didnt get into politics, I got into math and physics. Unlike you, I decided to roll with what i can actually understand


Jesus, then why do you go out of your way to make thoroughly dismissive comments on what I post regarding *political economy* and my choice of communicative style -- ?

If you don't understand it and have no interest in comprehending it, then just do something else, like math and physics -- stop commenting on my stuff to me.

[Remus Bleys]

Jesus, then why do you go out of your way to make thoroughly dismissive comments on what I post regarding *political economy* and my choice of communicative style -- ?

Every post you make is a stain and deserves to be wiped clean.


If you don't understand it and have no interest in comprehending it, then just do something else, like math and physics -- stop commenting on my stuff to me.

Ah see, i knew you would intepret it that way. I didnt go into politics, and neither did you, if you did, you wouldn't be posting on revleft.

[ckaihatsu]

Every post you make is a stain and deserves to be wiped clean.


You've already admitted to not-understanding my content and not caring -- you're hardly qualified to 'wipe clean' anything.





Ah see, i knew you would intepret it that way. I didnt go into politics, and neither did you, if you did, you wouldn't be posting on revleft.


Yeah, 'revleft' is short for 'revolutionary leftism', which is a type of politics.

[Remus Bleys]

You've already admitted to not-understanding my content and not caring -- you're hardly qualified to 'wipe clean' anything.
I understand youre comments like I understand the ramblings of a deranged lunatic.



Yeah, 'revleft' is short for 'revolutionary leftism', which is a type of politics.

when people say they go into politics, that means they have jobs or went to some kind of school involving politics.

[ckaihatsu]

I understand youre comments like I understand the ramblings of a deranged lunatic.


All you're doing is making dismissive characterizations of my person and my politics -- you're not bothering to deal with any (purported) *content* of what I've put forth.





when people say they go into politics, that means they have jobs or went to some kind of school involving politics.


Okay, so there are at least *2* meanings for the phrase 'going into politics'.

[Remus Bleys]

All you're doing is making dismissive characterizations of my person and my politics -- you're not bothering to deal with any (purported) *content* of what I've put forth.


the fact that what you say is meaningless is self evident. I dare you to make sense of any graphic you have posted.





Okay, so there are at least *2* meanings for the phrase 'going into politics'.

then any idiot has gone into politics, youre nothing special and you know nothing

[ckaihatsu]

the fact that what you say is meaningless is self evident. I dare you to make sense of any graphic you have posted.


If (according to you) my posts are 'self-evidently meaningless' then *you* are not *required* to comment, to say as much.





then any idiot has gone into politics, youre nothing special and you know nothing


RB -- politics is an emergent quality of society and social life.

People either deal proactively with the content of politics at some level, or else they don't. No one necessarily *has* to 'go into politics', but those who don't are going to be at a distinct disadvantage over such matters -- as with anything else -- because then they'll be dependent on *others* regarding such matters.

[AdrianO]

I'll maintain that you're attempting to *sidestep* the social question by 'deifying' the *technical* one, which is definitely a dodge. You're essentially flirting with 'technocracy' -- which is socially problematic because it posits a social hierarchy of work / oversight positions dealing with technical / engineering matters, which would be distinct and separate from the general population, and also presumably from non-technically-oriented workers.


A technocracy might be needed as a first step to lift the current stagnation, and abolish labor. I'm not calling for a dictatorship of the technocrats though. Perhaps a transitional period can be proposed, where the technocrats being specialists in their areas are held accountable by another party, the proletariat in this case.
This



'Limited' is not the same as 'scarce'.

And, more to the point, then, how would you propose to deal with the social distribution of materially-limited quantities -- ?

During the transitional period I mentioned above, the main goal would be to answer this question.
It might sound far fetched, but limited resources here, may not be limited on other planets, and we ought to be further ahead than we are now in space travel. But that's just one idea, I can give a definite answer to this question, that's why as a species we should concentrate our efforts to answer it. Otherwise, in a metaphorical sense, we'll all either be poor, or some of us will be richer than others.




Well, that's basically why you and I are here -- again, my own proposal is at post #36.

I think your proposal deals with the post capitalist economy. I might have missed how it removes the capitalists from power, and makes sure the revolution doesn't fall into the wrong hands.
Of course, according to your theory, everything should go well if they follow the labor credit idea, but I was more concerned with how do you make sure they'll follow it? Even Lenin had his own brand of Marxism obviously.




Well, my abiding concern, though, is about 'matching' people's own volitions to the more-objective overall social *needs* for whatever -- 'socially necessary labor'. (A.k.a., any unaddressed 'shitwork' issue, as in my scenario at post #44.)

Again, the goal is to automate this shitwork to the point where no human involvement is necessary. At the very least make considerably less 'shitty'.
In this case, there wouldn't be a need to match or coerce people into this undesired labor. But something in the nature of a light community service can be developed.

[Remus Bleys]

If (according to you) my posts are 'self-evidently meaningless' then *you* are not *required* to comment, to say as much.



No, everyone knows its bullshit.




RB -- politics is an emergent quality of society and social life.

People either deal proactively with the content of politics at some level, or else they don't. No one necessarily *has* to 'go into politics', but those who don't are going to be at a distinct disadvantage over such matters -- as with anything else -- because then they'll be dependent on *others* regarding such matters.

more pedantic nonsense.

[ckaihatsu]

A technocracy might be needed as a first step to lift the current stagnation, and abolish labor. I'm not calling for a dictatorship of the technocrats though. Perhaps a transitional period can be proposed, where the technocrats being specialists in their areas are held accountable by another party, the proletariat in this case.


I guess I find this to be too technocratic-sided, myself -- politically it smacks too much of *substitutionism*, where the proletariat would be 'asked' to allow specialization to continue in some form. In my understanding a proletarian revolution would be all about *de*-specializing all aspects of social life, including technical matters (including medicine).

(In other words how could the proletariat 'hold accountable' the technocrats / specialists if the proletariat wasn't at least *as knowledgeable* about those areas as the technicians / specialists themselves -- ?)





This





'Limited' is not the same as 'scarce'.

And, more to the point, then, how would you propose to deal with the social distribution of materially-limited quantities -- ?





During the transitional period I mentioned above, the main goal would be to answer this question.
It might sound far fetched, but limited resources here, may not be limited on other planets, and we ought to be further ahead than we are now in space travel. But that's just one idea, I can give a definite answer to this question, that's why as a species we should concentrate our efforts to answer it. Otherwise, in a metaphorical sense, we'll all either be poor, or some of us will be richer than others.


Okay, this is an honest appraisal, at least.

I'll distinctly posit, though, a 'gift-economy-minimum', where society revolts and overthrows capitalism, to institute a sheerly voluntary 'gift economy' -- hopefully those who freely work in this way for the common good (with everyone's universal free-access to the products of this liberated production) will be sufficient for a thoroughly humane world, even if the 'standard of living' takes an initial hit compared to some material-levels that we're used to seeing under capitalism.





I think your proposal deals with the post capitalist economy. I might have missed how it removes the capitalists from power, and makes sure the revolution doesn't fall into the wrong hands.


No, you're correct in that it's strictly a *model*, and not a 'gameplan'.

I would say that you're definitely viewing a revolution as being a 'managerial' kind of action, one necessitating a fixed hierarchy along the way.

Due to the mass numbers (billions) of people involved, though, I think it would be better to conceive of a proletarian revolution as being a 'sea change' in where people's attentions and efforts go -- by definition it would be a comprehensive *politicization* of all things social, especially including how labor is done.

Here's my 'vanguardist' position:




From all the discussions on vanguardism I've ever been around, including on this thread, it seems that there are really only a handful of issues involved.

My greatest concern is that we don't get *bogged down* by history. While I admire and champion all comrades who are adept at revolutionary historical matters -- certainly moreso than myself -- I've found that I've shied away from a more comprehensive, academic approach simply because the past is *not* directly transferable onto the future. There are many substantial, determining details of the historical situation back in 1917 that are *not* confining us today -- sheer material productive capacity would be one, not to mention communications capability, and so on.

This means that we *can't* look to the Bolshevik Revolution as the definitive, transferable model by which to form all revolutionary plans for the future. Yes, we should all be well aware of its intricacies and outcomes, but no, we should not be *beholden* to its *specific* storyline here in the 21st century.

I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

Just as it's easier to travel in elevators than in cars we should *strive* for a vertical consolidation of militant labor groupings as part of a worldwide proletariat offensive. This tight centrality and focus would enable the vanguard to manuever much more quickly and effectively against the class enemy's mobilizations, no matter where and when they take place, worldwide.

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism





Of course, according to your theory, everything should go well if they follow the labor credit idea, but I was more concerned with how do you make sure they'll follow it? Even Lenin had his own brand of Marxism obviously.


The 'labor credits' model is actually more of a *contingency* -- it's there if it should happen to be required. And, as a model, it's useful as a touchstone, to ask 'Would people be willing to do socially necessary tasks for *zero* labor credits per hour -- ?'.





Again, the goal is to automate this shitwork to the point where no human involvement is necessary. At the very least make considerably less 'shitty'.


Agreed.





In this case, there wouldn't be a need to match or coerce people into this undesired labor. But something in the nature of a light community service can be developed.


I'd have no *principled* objection to this kind of approach, but of course there'd be all the particulars of what the world may happen to *want* from 'community service' -- I'll note that the labor credits model has a component for regularly formalizing everyone's requests and demands, on a daily basis.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A thing I find interesting is that so many notions of a post-capitalist technology - a liberating technology - would follow the model of capitalist "high tech". Rather, couldn't a deployment of technology (in the fullest sense, and acknowledging its etymology - ie technique) which aimed to relate differently to the world - permaculture, soil rehabilitation, living archetecture, new methods of recycling and repurposing, whatever - potentiel rédigé incessant labour as much as "robots will do it"? Especially when we ask, "Who will mine the metals? Where?" and other sticky questions which concern the autonomy of communities, relations to landbase, etc.

[ckaihatsu]

A thing I find interesting is that ship many notions of a post-capitalist technology - a liberating technology - would follow the model of capitalist "high tech". Rather, couldn't a deployment of technology (in the fullest sense, and acknowledging its etymology - ie technique) which aimed to relate differently to the world - permaculture, soil rehabilitation, living archetecture, new methods of recycling and repurposing, whatever - potentiel rédigé incessant labour as much as "robots will do it"? Especially when we ask, "Who will mine the metals? Where?" and other sticky questions which concern the autonomy of communities, relations to landbase, etc.


While practices of living and consumption should certainly be open to discussion and re-socialization, I think that common expectations will be for a communist / post-capitalist society to readily match and *supersede* the material capabilities of the current, capitalist mode of production.

Specifically something as basic and useful as the use of *metals* wouldn't / shouldn't be put aside, unless functionally *better* materials could be easily substituted in their place (carbon fiber, maybe -- ?).

Of course much would depend on what kinds of lifestyles, exactly, would be in the mainstream of people's expectations -- perhaps 'high tech' would become more of a distinctly subset subculture rather than the 'leading edge' of shaping societal character that it is today.

[AdrianO]

(In other words how could the proletariat 'hold accountable' the technocrats / specialists if the proletariat wasn't at least *as knowledgeable* about those areas as the technicians / specialists themselves -- ?)

How do managers and executives in the current system manage complex production process and even research with a business non-technical background?
Same can be said for the proletariat in holding accountable the specialists/scientists and together directing the necessary resources for necessary R&D, which will aim to benefit everyone.



No, you're correct in that it's strictly a *model*, and not a 'gameplan'.

I would say that you're definitely viewing a revolution as being a 'managerial' kind of action, one necessitating a fixed hierarchy along the way.

Due to the mass numbers (billions) of people involved, though, I think it would be better to conceive of a proletarian revolution as being a 'sea change' in where people's attentions and efforts go -- by definition it would be a comprehensive *politicization* of all things social, especially including how labor is done.

Here's my 'vanguardist' position:




From all the discussions on vanguardism I've ever been around, including on this thread, it seems that there are really only a handful of issues involved.

My greatest concern is that we don't get *bogged down* by history. While I admire and champion all comrades who are adept at revolutionary historical matters -- certainly moreso than myself -- I've found that I've shied away from a more comprehensive, academic approach simply because the past is *not* directly transferable onto the future. There are many substantial, determining details of the historical situation back in 1917 that are *not* confining us today -- sheer material productive capacity would be one, not to mention communications capability, and so on.

This means that we *can't* look to the Bolshevik Revolution as the definitive, transferable model by which to form all revolutionary plans for the future. Yes, we should all be well aware of its intricacies and outcomes, but no, we should not be *beholden* to its *specific* storyline here in the 21st century.

I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

Just as it's easier to travel in elevators than in cars we should *strive* for a vertical consolidation of militant labor groupings as part of a worldwide proletariat offensive. This tight centrality and focus would enable the vanguard to manuever much more quickly and effectively against the class enemy's mobilizations, no matter where and when they take place, worldwide.


I certainly agree that there has to be a transitional organization of sorts. However there must be a mechanism that keeps this organization in check, so it wouldn't turn into a ruling cliche. This has to be thoroughly planned before any revolution takes place.

[ckaihatsu]

How do managers and executives in the current system manage complex production process and even research with a business non-technical background?
Same can be said for the proletariat in holding accountable the specialists/scientists and together directing the necessary resources for necessary R&D, which will aim to benefit everyone.


This proposed social dichotomy is too problematic, though -- why leave a schism ('humanities vs. technology') in place through a revolution / overhauling / enlightening of society, when instead everyone could *de*-specialize all formerly 'proprietary' and 'private' concerns -- ?

The objective checks-and-balances in play would be for more people to know more about scientific / technical processes that they're laying claim to on a collective basis, while specially-focused scientific / technical people would have to take up roles of political participation so as to represent their technical work and interests correctly in the politically-transitioning mainstream.


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0



http://s6.postimg.org/3vpb4bhip/120830_Humanities_Technology_Chart_3_0.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/6psghrjot/full/)


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0



http://s6.postimg.org/vd6i66x2p/090923_Humanities_Technology_Chart_2_0.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/kdlaul6nh/full/)





I certainly agree that there has to be a transitional organization of sorts. However there must be a mechanism that keeps this organization in check, so it wouldn't turn into a ruling cliche. This has to be thoroughly planned before any revolution takes place.


I think 'mechanism' misses the point, though -- the self-activity of the world's working class *is* the sum total of what the revolution is / would be, so any 'mechanism' would necessarily translate to being 'an organization', which just begs the question of how the proletariat is indeed self-organizing.

[AdrianO]

This proposed social dichotomy is too problematic, though -- why leave a schism ('humanities vs. technology') in place through a revolution / overhauling / enlightening of society, when instead everyone could *de*-specialize all formerly 'proprietary' and 'private' concerns -- ?

The objective checks-and-balances in play would be for more people to know more about scientific / technical processes that they're laying claim to on a collective basis, while specially-focused scientific / technical people would have to take up roles of political participation so as to represent their technical work and interests correctly in the politically-transitioning mainstream.


I think 'mechanism' misses the point, though -- the self-activity of the world's working class *is* the sum total of what the revolution is / would be, so any 'mechanism' would necessarily translate to being 'an organization', which just begs the question of how the proletariat is indeed self-organizing.
I'm not sure what you mean be de-specialization, but if we're talking strictly about patent-rights, private ownership of inventions, then no. In a technocrat-proletariat revolution, there would be no such thing. Any resulting work or advancement must be available for all, I would go even further and say that before any work is conducted, revolutionaries should answer these questions:
1) How would this work/research/invention improve the lives of every single person on the planet?
2) Will this work help abolishing undesired labor?
3) How will the result of this work be made available to all people?


By mechanism, I meant something like the US constitution, something that binds and holds the people at the helm of the revolution to the socialist goal.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not sure what you mean be de-specialization, but if we're talking strictly about patent-rights, private ownership of inventions, then no.


Right -- I just mentioned that





[E]veryone could *de*-specialize all formerly 'proprietary' and 'private' concerns


To clarify, 'despecialization' means *getting away from* lifetime-permanent / fixed work roles, and anything that smacks of 'turf', since the point of collectivization is to open everything up to ready input and participation, productively, for everyone's common benefit.





In a technocrat-proletariat revolution, there would be no such thing.


Correct -- it sounds like we're both against privatization.





Any resulting work or advancement must be available for all, I would go even further and say that before any work is conducted, revolutionaries should answer these questions:
1) How would this work/research/invention improve the lives of every single person on the planet?
2) Will this work help abolishing undesired labor?
3) How will the result of this work be made available to all people?


Okay, these are good guidelines for anyone to keep in mind -- the *particulars*, though, may not always align with this direction, as in the case of a natural disaster that then requires more local-based cleaning-up.

You're now onto the subject of 'scale', which is an entire topic of its own. Another fairly recent thread went in-depth regarding it, with my own position being this:





I happened to find an excellent image, a 3D fractal, that well-illustrates how we might imagine the tiered-scale structure of a post-capitalist social organization of productivity -- just imagine if greater extents of coordination took place going *inwards* towards the earth's center, with a full global *centralization* being at the exact *center* of the globe:


http://www.incendia.net/wiki/images/0/0c/Apollonian_I.png


Why I gave up on traditional communism

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-gave-up-t193405/index.html





By mechanism, I meant something like the US constitution, something that binds and holds the people at the helm of the revolution to the socialist goal.


Hmmmmm, well, feel free, I guess -- I tend to think of the whole of revolutionary leftist thought as being related to this, but no one's stopping you -- !

[Ele'ill]

I skimmed the last bit of this discussion so I may have missed it but can't technical communication be developed and implemented way past where it's at now so anyone interested could approach topics with at least a base understanding

[ckaihatsu]

I skimmed the last bit of this discussion so I may have missed it but can't technical communication be developed and implemented way past where it's at now so anyone interested could approach topics with at least a base understanding


This would be about how technical-type information and knowledge is *provided*, in terms of writing (along with illustrations, videos, etc.) and is also about the overall social issue of how *education* for the same is handled -- a huge topic in and of itself.

I'll maintain that *Wikipedia* is a huge service along these lines, for assisting anyone to a basic literacy in whatever area or subject they may be starting with.

[AdrianO]

I skimmed the last bit of this discussion so I may have missed it but can't technical communication be developed and implemented way past where it's at now so anyone interested could approach topics with at least a base understanding
Probably has the same odds of developing a sarcasm detector.

[ckaihatsu]

a 3D fractal [...] well-illustrates how we might imagine the tiered-scale structure of a post-capitalist social organization of productivity


F.y.i. -- the following may be a *better* illustration of how a hybrid-scale (multi-tiered) model of communist-type coordination over liberated production and distribution could be structured....


http://thingiverse-production-new.s3.amazonaws.com/renders/7e/26/e4/4f/83/printcraft_7e440bd36ebee2aba8ebff48bc23b2a0f3c9807 2bee5708cebf9756123fd3a32_preview_featured.jpg


It's similar to a hybrid-scale conception that I developed a few years ago:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimg.org/cp6z6ed81/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimg.org/image/ccfl07uy5/full/)