Motivation question

[kami888]

So how did you people actually solve the motivation question?

The reason why USSR started lagging behind USA was that many people found it easier to do less work but recieve the same amount of money.


And another question:
I know only 2 types of democracy: representative and direct. Direct democracy is unreachable in present day circumstance. So the only choice is representative democracy. But doesn't the representative democracy go against socialist idea?
Think about it: Those people who want to be elected to the next class representatives always have to compete with other people who want the same. But competition is against communism. In fact, if there are representatives, there is also hierarchy, which is also against communism.

[Subversive Pessimist]

So how did you people actually solve the motivation question?


I don't think there has been a place where it is needed to solve the motivation question, because in places like the USSR, people still worked for money.


I know only 2 types of democracy: representative and direct. Direct democracy is unreachable in present day circumstance.

Why do you think it's unreachable in present day circumstance? They had a pretty good system in Spain, 1936. It was more democratic then the United States or Germany for instance will ever be. 40 percent of the Spanish people were illiterate (I had to look up the word, isn't that ironic?). It still worked pretty good.


But doesn't the representative democracy go against socialist idea?


Don't know about socialists, but it goes against at least my ideas, as an anarcho-communist.

[monkeydust]

So how did you people actually solve the motivation question?


There are a number of answers to this question.

Perhaps first the point should be made that anyone who consitently decides not to work, simply out of laziness, will effectively be ostracized from the community. It would be very hard simply to do nothing and get away with it. In any case, I doubt that many would actually want to live a life of apathy and inactivity, it simply isn't fun. I would assume that most people would work at something.

But what will motivate people to work "hard"?

I think that some may simply work because they enjoy the job they do. If work is not a chore, there's little reason not to do it. It will probably be the case that many will enjoy their job, because they will have the social mobility to work at what they find intrinsically rewarding.

If someone wants to be a Doctor, they can be so. If they want to teach, then they can do the same. Communism removes the incentive for people to work at someting which they do not enjoy, because all occupations yield the same material reward.

Ultimately, however, the answer to your question is a selfish one. People who work hard at what they do will enjoy considerable prestige, and will be lauded for there eforts in the admiration of others. A hard worker will be someting for people to aspire to.


I know only 2 types of democracy: representative and direct. Direct democracy is unreachable in present day circumstance. So the only choice is representative democracy. But doesn't the representative democracy go against socialist idea?


You only say that direct democracy is "unreachable" because representative democracy is all that you have seen in the past.

The internet may actually make direct democracy a reality. It will be feasible if society is organised into small geographical units, or "collectives", which is the manner in which I imagine any Communist world will function.

[kami888]

I doubt that many would actually want to live a life of apathy and inactivity, it simply isn't fun.

I know people who would not agree with you about that :(


I think that some may simply work because they enjoy the job they do.
that's what happened in USSR after the revolution and during the second world war. But afterwards: money, money, money...


If someone wants to be a Doctor, they can be so. If they want to teach, then they can do the same.

What if they want to do nothing?



The internet may actually make direct democracy a reality.
I'm glad you mentioned it. I thought about it a lot, but the fact is: PTP and TCP/IP protocol, basically the whole transmission sequence is very far from being safe enough to provide a faultless voting system. The international network and the TCP/IP were originally created to be as much anonymous as possible. In order to make system able to handle voting polls, the anonimity must be removed, meaning the total reconstruction of whole internet.

[Essential Insignificance]

If motivation and impetus for, private property and self gain, was required for workers to go to work day in day out, for the agreed time, then capitalism would of went to the dogs centuries ago.

Considering that the proletarians as a class, own nothing of any social importance; that is, the means of material life.

Some people just like to labor; regardless what there doing and how much there getting for it; because, generally, people get very bored, in an incredibly short period time. Labor is often the answer to this boredom.

Some people I know get depressed days that they can’t go to work (if it is raining) because they have nothing to do.

Believe it or not, some people like to labor!

Personally I hate laboring, regardless of what it is, but I know I would enjoy it a lot more if the capitalist class wasn’t extracting from my labor-power, surplus labor and accordingly surplus profit.

Also in a communist society manual-labor and mental-labor, particularly, manual labor won’t be monotonous, perfunctory labor anymore, as in capitalist society, because, material production, a whole, will be regulated , exchanged and consumed accordingly to the social disposition.

Relieved from oppressive conditions, that bring individual interests in to conflict, people will voluntarily cooperate with each other, to advance the productive forces and the all round development of mankind; until the "strings cooperative wealth flows".

[ComradeRed]

I know this sounds science fiction-ish, but wouldn't automated labor solve this problem?

[Essential Insignificance]

I know this sounds science fiction-ish, but wouldn't automated labor solve this problem?

I going to assume that you meant automation labor on the part of machinery, instead, of "automated labor" on the part of proletarians, that we are vigorously trying to abolish.

Marx was very interested and had a great "fondness" of the supremacy of the modern day productive powers, against hitherto primitive-machinery, and the potentiality of it shortening the working day significantly; thus leaving more leisure time and autonomy to procure individual interests.

As for a society, that has all of its material life produced by machinery with out human convention; it’s a little while off, I think; but conversely, at the rate technology is progressing, the proposition is not all that absurd.

[monkeydust]

I know people who would not agree with you about that

Would I be right to assume that you are 18 or under? I know that the majority of this board is of such an age. If that is the case, then I'm not surprised that you know many "lazy bums"; teens often like to laze about, though they don't always stay that way.

In any case, I think it's important to recognize that many peoples' attitudes to work stem from the capitalist ideology which permeates society so assiduously. Such an ideology effectively encourages one to do "as little as possible" in order to get as much money as one can. It is largely a consequence of the individualism and consumerism populated by bourgeois ideological hegemony, and, in particular, the new right.

Don't forget that the of mundane work we see today will not persist in a Communist society. ComradeRed made the point that many dull tasks can be mechanically automated quite effectively.


that's what happened in USSR after the revolution and during the second world war. But afterwards: money, money, money...

Not really, Lenin had already introduced his New Economic Policy (essentially capitalism through the back door) by the 1920s.

Anyway, the USSR was not Communist.


What if they want to do nothing?


Then they get nothing.


I'm glad you mentioned it. I thought about it a lot, but the fact is: PTP and TCP/IP protocol, basically the whole transmission sequence is very far from being safe enough to provide a faultless voting system. The international network and the TCP/IP were originally created to be as much anonymous as possible. In order to make system able to handle voting polls, the anonimity must be removed, meaning the total reconstruction of whole internet.


Whatever the specifics, it is possible.

[kami888]

Would I be right to assume that you are 18 or under?
you would be right ;)


Such an ideology effectively encourages one to do "as little as possible" in order to get as much money as one can
Isn't that the human nature to do as little as possible and get as much as possible?
Whatever the case, capitalism keeps everyone working, because people don't have other choice but to do their work. In communism, you have such choice and even if people like their work, they will still try to do as little of it as possible. The last years of USSR have proved it.



Not really, Lenin had already introduced his New Economic Policy (essentially capitalism through the back door) by the 1920s.
Communism with NEP is not completely capitalist. moreover, NEP has existed in USSR for only 8 years. Here are the details:

in March, 1921, Vladimir Lenin announced details of his New Economic Policy (NEP).
As he pointed out: "The New Economic Policy is a special policy of the proletarian state designed to tolerate capitalism but retain the key positions in the hands of the proletarian state."
Farmers were now allowed to sell food on the open market and could employ people to work for them. Those farmers who expanded the size of their farms became known as kulaks.

The NEP also allowed some freedom of internal trade, permitted some private commerce and re-established state banks. Factories employing less than twenty people were denationalized and could be claimed back by former owners.

The NEP did improve the efficiency of food distribution and especially benefited the peasants. However, many urban workers resented the profits made by private traders.

In 1928 Stalin began attacking kulaks for not supplying enough food for industrial workers. Stalin was furious that the peasants were putting their own welfare before that of the Soviet Union. Local communist officials were given instructions to confiscate kulaks property. This land was then used to form new collective farms. Thousands of kulaks were executed and an estimated five million were deported to Siberia or Central Asia. Joseph Stalin announced the abolition of the NEP in January, 1929 and replaced it with the first of his Five Year Plans.




What if they do nothing?
Then they get nothing.
Nah, that's not possible under communism. Remeber, everyone must recieve the same.



Whatever the specifics, it is possible.
We will see <_< . but, after the worldwide revolution, it&#39;s not going to be possible to supply everyone with computers and new internet. Then how are the decisions going to be made?

[DaCuBaN]

If you opted for electronic direct democracy, it wouldn&#39;t be such a big issue. Not every home needs access to a terminal - they could be arranged much as ATMs are around the UK

http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm

Power Line Technology could well provide a simple solution - the expense is in the devices required to use the existing power cable infrastructure. No amendments are required - just plug in.

[kami888]

http://www.wave-report.com/tutorials/bpl.htm
Thanx for link dacuban, very interesting article. I changed my opinion about the workability of direct democracy. :)

[monkeydust]

Isn&#39;t that the human nature to do as little as possible and get as much as possible?


No, I wouldn&#39;t say so.

I could, admittedly, be wrong in my assertion. The point, however, on issues concerning human nature, is that we cannot know what our inherent behavioural tendencies are, as we cannot abstract any human from his or her conditions of upbringing. To a large extent suppositions about human nature are merely idle conjecture.

In any case, the fact that a great number of people do more than "as little as possible" in a society which discourages doing so, would at least probably indicate that your premise is false.

Personally, I think that "human nature" only has an influence on our most basic biological functions. This would involve, for example, drives to reproduce, to find food and shelter. Beyond that, our behaviour may well be a product of "nurture", rather than "nature", and as a conseqeuence, I don&#39;t think that your argument is a major stumbling point for Communism.


The last years of USSR have proved it.


Let&#39;s be honest, the USSR was hardly Communist. In fact, I&#39;d argue it was closer to Capitalism.


Communism with NEP is not completely capitalist. moreover, NEP has existed in USSR for only 8 years. Here are the details:



Of course, but after WWII, the USSR wasn&#39;t completely capitalist either.


Nah, that&#39;s not possible under communism. Remeber, everyone must recieve the same.


Not necessarily.

In fact, far more central to the Communist ideology is the abolition of private property and the creation of a classless society. It&#39;s quite feasible that those that don&#39;t work (out of sheer lazyness), will receive nothing (or very little) in terms of material rewards.

If not, then I would think that the social scorn and pity against such individuals would convince them to work anyway.


Then how are the decisions going to be made?

If Redstar&#39;s to be believed, through "Demarchy".


Redstar&#39;s article (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083543192&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[kami888]

Let&#39;s be honest, the USSR was hardly Communist. In fact, I&#39;d argue it was closer to Capitalism.
Why? the private property, at least in the central USSR was completely abolished.

and the creation of a classless society.
But look, If you have people who recieve less, or nothing due to their laziness, then you have a class society again&#33; There are middle class people - who do their work. And there are lower class people - who are too lazy to do it.

[monkeydust]

Why? the private property, at least in the central USSR was completely abolished.


For starters, the USSR retained a ruling class, fairly distinct variations in wealth, religion (although in certain areas it was supressed), currency and some forms of market incentive (e.g. Lenin&#39;s NEP). It&#39;s hardly surprising that the USSR adopted capitalism in the end, the material conditions to facilitate its emergence were all present.


But look, If you have people who recieve less, or nothing due to their laziness, then you have a class society again&#33; There are middle class people - who do their work. And there are lower class people - who are too lazy to do it.

Not really, at least not in Marx&#39;s terms.

According to Marx a class is not defined simply according to its material wealth, but, more importantly, to its relation to the means of production, from which so much else (e.g. political power) flows.

Certainly Communism would bring about a great deal of social and economic equality, but (at least I think) it would be impossible to achieve complete uniformity amongst all. Nevertheless, Communism remains classless because the means of production are collectively owned, and thus everyone has an equal relation to these means.