enigma2517
7th February 2005, 01:44
I recently had a discussion with my father about the allocation of human resources in a communist society. People would do things they like to do, not things they had to do to make a living, and thus would be more efficient and energetic in doing so, reducing the actual amount of hours required to produce a necessary surplus for the rest of society.
Now my dad's a pretty smart guy. Unlike silly cappie's who throw the argument "why would somebody waste time to study to become a doctor when they could just be a janitor". He realizes that the fun and respectful job positions would almost always be taken. The opposite question comes up, Who Will Clean the Sewers?
Incidently, Redstar2000 has already written an article by the same name...I used that along with some other things as the basis for my argument, so RS if you yourself could respond to this I'd appreciate it.
There are basically two ways of dealing with unpleasant, but, necessary work. First off, we can use innovation and technology to automate certain processes. This is a reality, even in modern capitalist countries the need for unskilled labor has been systematically decreasing. Maybe it will get to a point where there is almost none required. But I doubt that a complete elmination is anywhere on the horizon.
The second way is a decision made by a class-conscious society that in order to maintain and run their commune they must divide and split up the "nasty work" so that each individual has to do as little as possible of it. Sounds like a good, egalitarian solution at first, does it not?
However, one deficiancy in this was pointed out to me. Only certain people can become doctors or scientists for example. The amount of resources needed to train these people is huge, at least in comparison to say a janitor or garbageman. Also, it takes a very unique type of person to do this sort of work, while almost anybody can perform custodial duties. Now the point of communism is optimize our human resources and use them in a way that benefits society the most. So, why then would we pull a doctor out of his medical office to go pick up trash off the street? I'm sure that there will almost always be patients waiting to see him, so why would we neglect this person's wonderful abilities to serve society to make him go perform a rather menial task (although, admittingly, an important/essential task just as well)?
I was surprised to hear that this type of solution had been implemented in a rudimentary way in the Soviet Union. My father told me how him and his fellow PhD colleagues had to occassionally stop their work to be driven out the country side and made to harvest potatos (a type of forced volunteerism I guess). He said that the productivity of this type of action was extremely little. Now, given that it was forced on to him by the State, we could assume that individuals who voluntarily make the decision to serve society in this way would be a bit better off (my father was probably grumbling and slacking the entire time). However, you can still see the problem that this presents.
This is where the catch-22 falls in. Either we could have people do this and experience less productivity or we could allow "professionals" or those with skills that are in especially high demand to get some kind of exemption. This, of course, would probably just lead back to classes and capitalism :(.
Lastly, RS mentioned that one possible solution was to give people incentive by putting them at the top of waiting lists for more "scarce" products if they did more dirty work. Once again, it sounds great on the surface, but there are a few nuances. First off, what about the mentally handicapped and generally disabled, who often cannot engage in labor any more complex than picking up trash. They'd be at the top of every list! Also, how would u verify that this person actually worked those hours long and hard. In the workplace, no matter how u work you are still have the same access to your commune's warehouse, so you are inclined to work how you feel like and can honestly relate your performance to others. However, once you throw in "prizes" and "bonuses" people will return to the old capitalist scramble of exploiting the system for their own benefit. We tend to analyze things in a cost oppertunity/benefit way, and simply signing your name saying that you did x amount of dirty work and as a result getting a car or something else thats extremely valuable would seem like a tempting option to even the most otherwise honest and responsible person.
Or maybe I'm just not getting something here?
Now my dad's a pretty smart guy. Unlike silly cappie's who throw the argument "why would somebody waste time to study to become a doctor when they could just be a janitor". He realizes that the fun and respectful job positions would almost always be taken. The opposite question comes up, Who Will Clean the Sewers?
Incidently, Redstar2000 has already written an article by the same name...I used that along with some other things as the basis for my argument, so RS if you yourself could respond to this I'd appreciate it.
There are basically two ways of dealing with unpleasant, but, necessary work. First off, we can use innovation and technology to automate certain processes. This is a reality, even in modern capitalist countries the need for unskilled labor has been systematically decreasing. Maybe it will get to a point where there is almost none required. But I doubt that a complete elmination is anywhere on the horizon.
The second way is a decision made by a class-conscious society that in order to maintain and run their commune they must divide and split up the "nasty work" so that each individual has to do as little as possible of it. Sounds like a good, egalitarian solution at first, does it not?
However, one deficiancy in this was pointed out to me. Only certain people can become doctors or scientists for example. The amount of resources needed to train these people is huge, at least in comparison to say a janitor or garbageman. Also, it takes a very unique type of person to do this sort of work, while almost anybody can perform custodial duties. Now the point of communism is optimize our human resources and use them in a way that benefits society the most. So, why then would we pull a doctor out of his medical office to go pick up trash off the street? I'm sure that there will almost always be patients waiting to see him, so why would we neglect this person's wonderful abilities to serve society to make him go perform a rather menial task (although, admittingly, an important/essential task just as well)?
I was surprised to hear that this type of solution had been implemented in a rudimentary way in the Soviet Union. My father told me how him and his fellow PhD colleagues had to occassionally stop their work to be driven out the country side and made to harvest potatos (a type of forced volunteerism I guess). He said that the productivity of this type of action was extremely little. Now, given that it was forced on to him by the State, we could assume that individuals who voluntarily make the decision to serve society in this way would be a bit better off (my father was probably grumbling and slacking the entire time). However, you can still see the problem that this presents.
This is where the catch-22 falls in. Either we could have people do this and experience less productivity or we could allow "professionals" or those with skills that are in especially high demand to get some kind of exemption. This, of course, would probably just lead back to classes and capitalism :(.
Lastly, RS mentioned that one possible solution was to give people incentive by putting them at the top of waiting lists for more "scarce" products if they did more dirty work. Once again, it sounds great on the surface, but there are a few nuances. First off, what about the mentally handicapped and generally disabled, who often cannot engage in labor any more complex than picking up trash. They'd be at the top of every list! Also, how would u verify that this person actually worked those hours long and hard. In the workplace, no matter how u work you are still have the same access to your commune's warehouse, so you are inclined to work how you feel like and can honestly relate your performance to others. However, once you throw in "prizes" and "bonuses" people will return to the old capitalist scramble of exploiting the system for their own benefit. We tend to analyze things in a cost oppertunity/benefit way, and simply signing your name saying that you did x amount of dirty work and as a result getting a car or something else thats extremely valuable would seem like a tempting option to even the most otherwise honest and responsible person.
Or maybe I'm just not getting something here?