Incentive?

[Shahaab]

I've discussed Socialism/Communism with many people in my country including some scholars. Almost everyone pointed out a flaw--as they like to call it--of the system that there will remain no incentive and/or motivation for the poeople to work hard. People will become indolent and lazy. They say that you'll have to force the people to make them work. Eventually the system will become cruel.

What do you think is the solution of this problem? Did Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Mao etc. ever answered this question?

[workersunity]

i would say for starting check out marxists.org on the subject, but i would say the incentive is, free healthcare, cheap or free housing, the right to get the products of your labor, education, the feeling that your helping make the society function, and that your actually living out your potential, which unlike capitalism

[Djehuti]

"In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou labour! was Jehovah's curse on Adam. And this is labour for Smith, a curse. 'Tranquillity' appears as the adequate state, as identical with 'freedom' and 'happiness'. It seems quite far from Smith's mind that the individual, 'in his normal state of health, strength, activity, skill, facility', also needs a normal portion of work, and of the suspension of tranquillity. Certainly, labour obtains its measure from the outside, through the aim to be attained and the obstacles to be overcome in attaining it. But Smith has no inkling whatever that this overcoming of obstacles is in itself a liberating activity — and that, further, the external aims become stripped of the semblance of merely external natural urgencies, and become posited as aims which the individual himself posits — hence as self-realization, objectification of the subject, hence real freedom, whose action is, precisely, labour.

He is right, of course, that, in its historic forms as slave-labour, serf-labour, and wage-labour, labour always appears as repulsive, always as external forced labour; and not-labour, by contrast, as 'freedom, and happiness'. This holds doubly: for this contradictory labour; and, relatedly, for labour which has not yet created the subjective and objective conditions for itself (or also, in contrast to the pastoral etc. state, which it has lost), in which labour becomes attractive work, the individual's self-realization, which in no way means that it becomes mere fun, mere amusement, as Fourier, with grisette-like naivete, conceives it. Really free working, e.g. composing, is at the same time precisely the most damned seriousness, the most intense exertion.

The work of material production can achieve this character only (1) when its social character is posited, (2) when it is of a scientific and at the same time general character, net merely human exertion as a specifically harnessed natural force, but exertion as subject, which appears in the production process not in a merely natural, spontaneous form, but as an activity regulating all the forces of nature.
Karl Marx, Grundrisse p. 611 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...drisse/ch12.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch12.htm)


Also read this: WORK AND ANTI-WORK
http://www.prole.info/introduction/work_0.html
http://www.prole.info/introduction/anti-work_0.html

[monkeydust]

I suppose you could point out that crude selfishness wouldn't be rewarded as it is in capitalism, or that people will have a more likely chance to gravitate to a job that's actually useful and that they can enjoy.

But perhaps that won't persuade them fully.

I guess the real answer is that there are, in actual fact, "incentives" in Communism; but these "incentives" take a form different to something under capitalism because the economic base of society - and the social structure, form and orientation along with it - have changed beyond recognition.

People won't be given "a few extra quid here", or a "few extra dollars there" for the work that they do, no.

But they'll have "rewards" in the sense that they attain greater social prestige, heaps of praise and respect. In general, you'd expect the "social pressure" to run in a way that encourages hard work where possible - the opposite to the current prevailing view of "I want to make as much money I can with as little work as possible."

In the way that social rewards and incentives changed drastically from feudalism to capitalism, so, you would expect, the same would happen in the change from capitalism to communism.

[KickMcCann]

Ask yourself this, where is the incentive in capitalism for the worker? I make about $9,000 dollars a year at my job, full time. If I work hard, I might produce $60,000 dollars in profit for the owner, or if I am lazy, maybe $10,000 dollars; either way, I'm still going to make the same old lousy un-livable wage.

The point is, workers in capitalism never see the result of their labor, it goes to the owner in the form of profit and the worker is payed a minimum wage to survive off of. As a result, the worker has no motivation, no incentive to work his or her butt off just so some rich guy can get rich and he can stay poor, he only does just enough to keep the job.

Perhaps if workers got to enjoy the spoils of their labor instead of giving them away, production levels and motivation would be much higher than it is today.

[Social Greenman]

Speaking of motivation to do work. There are some socialists who believe that motivation will no longer be so private, that we will do things because we recognize that they need to be done ... no need to pay us in order to inspire us. However, I believe that motivation will remain largely, not entirely, private and material. We have to have individual payment for going to work, otherwise people would tend to do only the most fun kinds of work and not show up in the necessary numbers and frequency for the other kinds. Workers in a socialist economy would have to have some sort of pay scale because not everything is automated for production like digging ditches to lay sewer lines or a plumber standing knee deep in sewage to unplug a clogged line. I don't think a "free access" socialist society would get off the ground if everyone only volunteered to work. Production would not keep up with consumption (new inventory) = (old inventory) + (new product manufactured since last time) - (number shipped out since last time)

On the other hand, would a socialist society continue to use the same capitalist monetary system or should the socialist society switch over to a Time Labor Voucher system so that the worker could get the entire fruit of his/her labor? What I am trying to convey here is that a Time Labor Voucher (TLV) would equal the amount of what is produced in each hour of production. More in the case of stressful or dangerous work. TLV would not be circulated as hard currency meaning that the exchange for commodities using TLV's at the store would disappear from existence which would be a motivation for worker to continue to work in attaining them. The disappearance of TLV's would eliminate the profit motive which is a feature of hard currency. This can be done through a computer software program. Of course there would have to be some sort of law enforcement that would ensure that there would be no illegal obtainment of TLV through hacking the system.

[bezdomni]

I think we need to change the whole "work is punishment" mentality that plagues society. This can be done by more giving benefits for all workers (free quality healthcare, higher wages, democratic rights in the workplace, ownership of production..etc), making the work environment a safter and more enjoyable place. Under capitalism, people work around noisy, dangerous machines all day, receive little pay and are fired if they talk while they work. Capitalism is the economic structure that provides no incentive to work for the people as a whole! We have to sell our labour to live as individuals under capitalism. Under socialism, we have to create labour in order for society to survive. There is more of an incentive for society to unity and work together when its entire existence is threatened by lazyness. I think there is more incentive under true socialism than there is under capitalism.

I would venture to say that there is more suicide amongst proletarian (obviously they not only lose the incentive to work, but to live, as a result of alienation from production) in Japan, which is a very right-wing country than say, Spain or Venezuela, which are becoming more leftist.

(However, I haven't got a statistic to back that up, just an educated guess.)

[Social Greenman]

I agree that either you work or stave and one has to compete with other worker to be employed. Capitalist like to over stock the labor maket so that they can lower wages to increase profits. Eugene Debs wrote in 1905 that workers agerage 17 percent while the capitalist class got 83 percent in profits through suplus labor and surplus value. I know I harp on TLV,s but I see this as a incentive to convince workers that socialism has answers. It would include free health care, childcare, education, etc., in a sense since added time can be added and subtracted for workers in those fields which would include research and developement. I read some where that the government issues grants for research and developement because the capitalist class does not find it profitable to do so. I wish I could remember where I read that lately since I am always reading an article here and there.

[Abstrakt]

What about that...Uh, day they had(Or may still have in Cuba)? ::Looks through John Lee Anderson's "CHE":: I can't seem to find it, but I guess there were days of volunteer labour. Sort of, to do all the "dirty" jobs. Couldn't something like that be set up? Maybe once a week(Or more frequently, or less) where the whole community pitches in to do the "dirty" work. Hey, maybe the people that do normally do the "dirty" work could get the day off, or something like that. Just shooting off ideas:)

[Social Greenman]

I believe people in the U.S and Canada do those volunteer days to clean litter in parks and on highways, mow grass and plant flowers and such. However, being advanced nations there is just too much dirty jobs everywhere. Without some sort of compensation nothing would get done. Even if this was done with production and distribution consumption would out flank production.

[pofi]

Hi I'm new here and I had those thoughts reading this post,

Now in the capitalist system companies are developing technologies against each others with copyrights and patents, etc. In a socialistic system if all means of production and research are put in common the technology will develop really faster. Then we will develop means of productions that are more and more autonomous. If a machine or a robot can replace someone's job it will not be a salary for someone that is lost, it will be less work for everybody.

Also, right now there is unemployment because there is less job than people. A job is about 40 hours a week (where I live). If we take for example 3 more persons for the same job, we can divide the amount of work as 10 hours a week for each person.

And this amount of work by person decrease as the automatisation of means of productions increase! If we become enough advanced that I would only have to work one day a week or 2 months a years and can do what I want the rest of the time I would have time to learn things, to have fun, to raise some kids decently, to become a human that is more free.

[Social Greenman]

Yes, socialism would increase automation and more people would not have to work long hours or compete for limited jobs. Technology would increase because developements would no longer done with copy rights pr patents. With Time Labor Vouchers, the profit motive is removed and since there is no profits, workers would get back 100 percent of their labor in the exchange at the store. More time to explore the world, raise a family decently and being free.