Working in a Communist society

[Phalanx]

I have been arguing continually with my dad, who is a huge skeptic of Marxism. I'm not sure what to say when he says "What motivation do the workers have if they don't have to work hard to get benefits?".
Really, I don't know what to say, the best I can come up with is that we may need to polish out a few rough edges.

Edit: I don't know if this thread has been done before, if so, put a link and delete this one.

[Clarksist]

The issue has been covered many times.

Basically, the satisfaction of work comes from being able to do what you want, instead of what you have to do. You have unlimited free education. So you can be what you want to be.

In capitalism you can't always be what you want, either you have no capital to start your company, or have no chance because of cost of tuition.

[violencia.Proletariat]

instead of trying to explain this, show him this http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...quest/ch12.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch12.html)

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 1 2005, 02:51 AM
I have been arguing continually with my dad, who is a huge skeptic of Marxism. I'm not sure what to say when he says "What motivation do the workers have if they don't have to work hard to get benefits?".
Really, I don't know what to say, the best I can come up with is that we may need to polish out a few rough edges.

Edit: I don't know if this thread has been done before, if so, put a link and delete this one.
Who says the people aren't working for benefits? There will be many benefits from work in communism, some will be tangible, others will not be.

One intangible benefit is the personal freedom of doing what you want. This goes along with the division of labor, which is extremely rigid in capitalism, becoming fuzzier in communism. In communism, you'll have farmers who obviously farm the land, but they will not just be farmers. Who's to say a particularly lousy farmer, who still does his work, will not be a fantastic writer? You will have people with many more skills, skills that they can do because of their lack of reliance on capital. Freedom of the individual in communism actually will grow, contrary to what many capitalists say.

As for tangible benefits, how about the commune's subsistence for one? If the people sleep all day and do no work, as seems to be your father's rather usual capitalist objection, will these people survive? I argue that people naturally have a will to survive, people do not want to die, and they will do what is required to avoid death. This means work. The will to survival is not easily debated, as we all undoubtedly have it. People in communism will work for personal and collective entertainment and enjoyment, as well as communal subsistence. In short, if you don't work, you obviously don't get any food. Why would people simply not work and thus starve themselves to death? Such logic boggles the mind.

Going along with that, many a capitalist has said that 'selfish' desires will take over the people. But this also, when looked at critically, amkes little sense. It is inarguable that in a small commune, every one person will do something constructive for the whole. Value will be placed on communal subsistence. Some say this is impossible. But if one is selfish, and one takes another person's food because 'they have earned it', this person will eliminate the other. Not only will this be severely frowned upon in any group with any kind of morality, but also this will eliminate a worker. This worker was providing the selfish person with some material goods, and now the selfish person has eliminated the worker. In short, in a small community, not only will social relations be rather good, but also each individual will be connected to another, meaning that if one individual is eliminated, the whole suffers. Individuals are reliant upon society, and society is reliant upon individuals.

[Roses in the Hospital]

Don't forget boredom as an issue. Obviously the thought of not having to work seems an appealing one, but, I think that for most people after an extented period of lounging around they'll want to fill their time more productivly.
One of my favourate aspects of Marxism is the importance it places on individual growth and enlightenment. I Can't remember the exact quopte but surely the chance to be a 'fisherman in the morning and a schlar in the evening' is a far more worthwhile motivation to work than money...

[OleMarxco]

I'm not sure, but I think this topic has been before :P Everything would rotate,
nothing's static and everything's temporary.......
......Under Communism, I'd for example would like to be something as an architect or a builder, then perhaps I'd want some change for a while and become a cook, or maybe even a rocket scientist for example. Perhaps not so advanced; A doctor would suffice. Whatever -- That's not the point, 'tho. As in difference to what someone "had" said earlier, takin' no names here, we'll all be "a little of this, a little of that" ;)

[Led Zeppelin]

"The state will be able to wither away completely when society adopts the rule: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", i.e., when people have become so accustomed to observing the fundamental rules of social intercourse and when their labor has become so productive that they will voluntarily work according to their ability. "The narrow horizon of bourgeois law", which compels one to calculate with the heartlessness of a Shylock whether one has not worked half an hour more than anybody else--this narrow horizon will then be left behind. There will then be no need for society, in distributing the products, to regulate the quantity to be received by each; each will take freely "according to his needs".

From the bourgeois point of view, it is easy to declare that such a social order is "sheer utopia" and to sneer at the socialists for promising everyone the right to receive from society, without any control over the labor of the individual citizen, any quantity of truffles, cars, pianos, etc. Even to this day, most bourgeois "savants" confine themselves to sneering in this way, thereby betraying both their ignorance and their selfish defence of capitalism." Lenin

To continue reading this go here: 4. The Higher Phase of Communist Society (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s4)

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 04:38 AM
The issue has been covered many times.

Basically, the satisfaction of work comes from being able to do what you want, instead of what you have to do. You have unlimited free education. So you can be what you want to be.

In capitalism you can't always be what you want, either you have no capital to start your company, or have no chance because of cost of tuition.
This argument is all very well, but it still ignores a number of fundamental issues. A few immediately come to mind.

1. Even with "unlimited education" (whatever that means), you can't simply "be what you want to be", for various reasons. You might, for instance, simply be too dumb for a particular job that requires great intelligence - a nuclear scientist or something like that. You might lack the talents or capabilities for a particular role you might want and therefore be relegated to doing something that you don't want to do.

2. Even in a Communist Society, I can't see there being "unlimited vacancies" in all jobs. If, hypothetically speaking, 10% of people wanted to be Doctors they wouldn't all be able to simply because there's no need to have 10% of people in a polity being Doctors; in fact, it's pretty absurd - barring a mass outbreak of AIDS or the clap.

3. Certain undesirable jobs need fulfilling by someone. No one is born into this world and says "I want to stack shelves!", but such jobs need to be done - very often if only to keep the more interesting jobs working themselves.

I am not saying that all this means it "could never work", but I think we need to think much harder on this issue, and offer suggestions that go beyond the "anyone can do what they want so everyone's happy" domain.

One suggestion would be for people to organize a rota for the "crap jobs" - everyone having to do some of them some of the time and the amount any one person having to do diminished greatly by the distribution of such work between all. Another might be use of lot to decide who does what, in certain areas.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think a lot of questions remain and we have to do a lot more thinking before we can feel content with the kind of answer you gave.

[anomaly]

Yes, undesirable jobs need filling, but in an agricultural commune, for example, what job isn't undesirable? Does anyone really want to farm and (ugh) perform manual labor? Of course not. But these undesirable jobs may very well be the ones neccesary for the commune's survival. The question, at that point, becomes will people do undesirable jobs if they must be done to survive? I think it is rather illogical to say that 'no, they won't. They'll laze about and simply die'.

Now, I suppose the undesirable job example you give of 'shelf stacker' would only be in industrial communes (this also implies that there will indeed be more than one commune...it is a long ways off). In more advanced, technologically, communes, undesirables jobs may very well be done away with through technological means.

I think that for other undesirable jobs, those not neccesary for survival but only for added luxury, a rotary system as you suggest may very well work. Another possibility is simply volunteering to do one's own needed undesirable jobs. For example, how will we do away with janitors? Well, perhaps one can actually pick up after one's self, voluntarily. That doesn't seem so difficult. Of course, in other situations, solutions will bem ore complex, which could then require your 'rota' idea.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by monkeydust
You might, for instance, simply be too dumb for a particular job that requires great intelligence - a nuclear scientist or something like that. You might lack the talents or capabilities for a particular role you might want and therefore be relegated to doing something that you don't want to do.

But who wants to do something that they're no damn good at?

For example, as a high school student I was interested in a career in science...but was stunned to learn that higher mathematics was a "brick wall" to me. Thus I turned my attentions to history and politics...though I continue to read popular accounts of science, I cannot kid myself that I could ever do it. I'm a pretty smart guy...but not that kind of smart.

When we are adolescents, we "try out different things" and learn "what we're good at". In communist society, people would get a lot more encouragement to experiment with different kinds of work...look for something that they both enjoy and are good at.

The idea of "relegating" someone to something that they "don't want to do" is unworkable in the context of communism. If you start "commanding" people to do shit that they don't want to do, they will react with hatred for you and communism.

If there are jobs that are so bad that no one wants to do them, then it's time to question the real necessity of those jobs existing at all -- could we get by without this particular thing? Or should we approach it in a completely different way than has ever been done before?

Gold and diamond mining, for example, is a really rotten job...but one that is also unnecessary. Gold has little practical use and we already know how to make crystals that are harder than diamonds for industrial purposes.

Meatpacking is likewise a rotten job...and dangerous as hell -- but we need the meat. So we must think of a whole fresh approach to this industry...it needs re-designing from the ground up.

Our worst enemy in this respect is the superstition that "it's always been done this way". What makes so many jobs shitty is the realization by the workers themselves that what they are doing often is unnecessarily laborious and stupidly inefficient as well.


Even in a Communist Society, I can't see there being "unlimited vacancies" in all jobs.

To be sure. And the consequence would be boredom...there's no point to being a doctor if you see one patient a week or a month. Over time, people would drift away from "overcrowded" positions towards positions where there was "interesting work to do".


Certain undesirable jobs need fulfilling by someone. No one is born into this world and says "I want to stack shelves!", but such jobs need to be done - very often if only to keep the more interesting jobs working themselves.

Well, you have to remember that people are different...a task that would strike you or me as intolerably tedious might suit another person perfectly fine.

In fact, some (many!) of the things that people do for "fun" now would send me screaming up the walls.

So who am I to say what is an "intolerable" job? We will simply have to wait and see what people will want to do and what they won't want to do.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[FriedFrog]

Could the 'crap jobs' not be given to criminals as a form of punishment?

I'm not entirely sure how the system of Law and Order would function in a communist society, so I don't know if what I suggested could actually work.

And I assume there will always be hearty volunteers to fill in the bad jobs for a while. I know I'd lend a hand if a post needed to be filled, and I'm guessing there would be more like me.

[novemba]

In my opinion in a communist society criminality would not exist in the form we know it today. The only crimes that would be commited would be in the heat of passion such as murder, assualt, etc...or counter-revolutionary crimes...

[monkeydust]

Redstar,

I like some of those suggestions, and that's essentially the kind of thing I was getting at when I said that we need to think much harder than to simply say, as some do, that "it'll all be fine" and "will work out perfectly". I have a few quibbles, however.


But who wants to do something that they're no damn good at?

For example, as a high school student I was interested in a career in science...but was stunned to learn that higher mathematics was a "brick wall" to me. Thus I turned my attentions to history and politics...though I continue to read popular accounts of science, I cannot kid myself that I could ever do it. I'm a pretty smart guy...but not that kind of smart.


But why was it a brick wall? Most likely because if you'd tried to follow such a path the market and the current way of things would guarantee you to fall flat on your face.

In Communism, what decides that? Who's to say that you're not good enough, and with what compulsion? If someone's dead-set on becoming, say, a nucelar scientist or a writer, who's to block their way?

I think matters of common sense would settle some matters; people would simply end up looking like fools, and recognizing this fact, would want to try something else they're better suited to and more likely to get respect doing. But I don't think this would suffice to solve all such matters.

I still foresee people needing to come to collective agreement to distribute "undesirable" work in a fair and rational manner, to some extent.


If there are jobs that are so bad that no one wants to do them, then it's time to question the real necessity of those jobs existing at all -- could we get by without this particular thing? Or should we approach it in a completely different way than has ever been done before?


That's a good point, and doubtless many such jobs won't be needed anymore. I don't think we should get our hopes up at our current level of technology, however; modern society still requires a lot of people doing relatively menial jobs to keep the "nuts and bolts" - essential services, cleaning, food and so on - functioning.


To be sure. And the consequence would be boredom...there's no point to being a doctor if you see one patient a week or a month. Over time, people would drift away from "overcrowded" positions towards positions where there was "interesting work to do".


Good point, I hadn't considered that.


Well, you have to remember that people are different...a task that would strike you or me as intolerably tedious might suit another person perfectly fine.

In fact, some (many!) of the things that people do for "fun" now would send me screaming up the walls.

So who am I to say what is an "intolerable" job? We will simply have to wait and see what people will want to do and what they won't want to do.


Granted, people are different and like different things at different times. I'm sceptical as to the extent of these differences, however.

It seems to be an almost universal human tendency to find repetitive tasks tedious after a short time - this is quite possibly the nature of our brains rather than our individual personalities, and I see little way to solve the issue.

I don't know about you, but I have never yet met someone who's enthusiastic about stacking shelves. :)


P.S. What I'm getting at here is that I think we need either, or perhaps both, of these to make things "work".

1. Some kind of collective and rational agreement to organize distribution of "crap jobs" in a fair and equitable manner. Ay such proposal would fundamentally have to be agreed on with people's consent, not imposed.

2. Substantial increases in technology to make many more dull jobs unnecessary.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by FriedFrog+--> (FriedFrog)Could the 'crap jobs' not be given to criminals as a form of punishment?[/b]

Bad idea. Once you start down that road, you end up with labor camps. And worse, guards.


monkeydust
But why was it a brick wall? Most likely because if you'd tried to follow such a path the market and the current way of things would guarantee you to fall flat on your face.

Well, when I was a kid, math was "easy" for me...right up to the point when I took trigonometry and solid geometry. It stopped being "easy" and became terribly hard. It was indeed like "a brick wall".

I was like the kid that "tears up the minor leagues" but when he's brought up to the majors, it turns out he can't hit a major league curve ball for shit...and soon he makes that sad trip back to the minor leagues.

At my very best, I would never have been more than a "fringe player" in any scientific career...I lacked the innate talent to "play with the big boys".

You could say, of course, that I was being unconsciously influenced by the "market"...the knowledge that there's no market for incompetence.

But I think even in a communist society -- where I could go to school as long as I liked -- I would have abandoned any idea of a career in science fairly early on...as soon as I ran into "major league" math.


Who's to say that you're not good enough, and with what compulsion? If someone's dead-set on becoming, say, a nuclear scientist or a writer, who's to block their way?

One's peers, of course. There are only a small number of things that one can do "on one's own". If you "want to be" a nuclear physicist and yet you are ignorant of higher mathematics, other scientists will refuse to work with you...they don't have time for dummies. If you "want to be" a writer and yet you are really bad at it, no one will publish or read what you have written.

For obvious reasons, I could never have been a professional writer under capitalism...but many people over the years have expressed appreciation for my amateur efforts in that direction. It's quite possible that in a communist society, I might well have ended up as a full-time editor of a daily newspaper...elected to that position by my peers.

We have to assume that every workplace in a communist society will consist of people who want to be there and who are good at what they do...and if you are not good at that, they won't want you around -- you'll just be in the way. (Of course, there'll always be some young people around who are "learning the trade"...and some older folks who are changing their careers. But just going on year after year being "Mr. Fuckup" won't be tolerated.)


I still foresee people needing to come to collective agreement to distribute "undesirable" work in a fair and rational manner, to some extent.

I hope it will not be necessary to take that step...but if it is, then it is. If the price of freedom from wage-slavery means that every physically-fit individual has to spend one day a month on the back of a garbage truck...well, then we have to pay it.


It seems to be an almost universal human tendency to find repetitive tasks tedious after a short time - this is quite possibly the nature of our brains rather than our individual personalities, and I see little way to solve the issue.

I tend to agree...though I have known people who didn't seem to mind all that much. They told me that they "just switched off their brains" and didn't really think about what they were doing at all.

This is hardly a desirable way to live, in my opinion.

Since we almost certainly will have the capacity to sharply reduce working hours, we can at least alleviate this condition.


I don't know about you, but I have never yet met someone who's enthusiastic about stacking shelves.

Me neither. :lol:

Perhaps our distribution centers will not have shelves...just big open shipping cartons on the floor where each person just reaches in and takes what they need. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[werewolf]

You must not forget the middle step along the way: Socialism, where all the problems get ironed out. I generally try to avoid the "utopian" reasons to work. They don't generally work with Capitalist understanding. Here is pretty much how I explained it to my one friend. (who was actually convinced in the end)

one- You don't work hard or at all (to the best of your abilities) you don't get housing or food. Welfare is not Socialist, you MUST work in Socialism.

two- People with true creativity will work above and beyond the requirements. Most of the people who work for the purpose of money in capitalism are either dirt poor and NEED it or are greedy. There are those of us who work hard beyond the requirements, not for money, but because we just like to do it. It's as much pride as it is boredom. And hey, if you do great, you could become well known. You might even get elected into a political office. THAT IS TRUE MOTIVATION!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by werewolf
You must not forget the middle step along the way: Socialism, where all the problems get ironed out...You don't work hard or at all (to the best of your abilities) you don't get housing or food.

Sounds just like the shit we have now...

Forget it!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[werewolf]

Well that is what we SHOULD have now. Working hard in the US does not guarentee you anything. I have a couple welfare people that live next door and they do not have any physical disabilities. They've managed to cheat the system and get things for free without having to work. (but of course....you were probably just kidding....least I hope you were) *new here, doesn't know individual behavior too well*

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:15 PM
Well that is what we SHOULD have now. Working hard in the US does not guarantee you anything. I have a couple welfare people that live next door and they do not have any physical disabilities. They've managed to cheat the system and get things for free without having to work.
Unless you are intimately familiar with the next-door neighbor's family details, you couldn't possible know if they are "getting away" with anything.

For example, they could be living off their unemployment benefits and/or their personal savings. Or, they could be living off their credit cards until they max out. Or they could have other family members sending them money until they can find jobs. Or they could be mentally disabled in some way...or have some physical disability that "doesn't show" (bad heart, bad kidneys, etc.).

From what I've been told, I gather that it's very difficult to get any kind of government benefit these days (in the U.S.) -- they reject more people who are really entitled than people who are "faking it".

It's very reckless for you to conclude that your neighbors are "getting away" with anything.

And even if they were, so what? It's not as if we are under any "moral obligation" to work in order to make a bunch of rich bastards even richer! If somebody figures out a scam to beat the government out of $750-$1300 a month, more power to them! That lofty sum equals what a defense contractor steals in about .001 seconds...those guys each loot and plunder tens of millions of dollars a year in "cost over-runs", accounting tricks, etc.

Our enemies are not "welfare cheats", they are members of the capitalist class!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Taboo Tongue]

Originally posted by Alot of Smart People
No one likes stacking shelves
I'm pretty damn sure that Communism is against child labour. But what about Volunteer Child Labour. Not many adults like stacking shelves, but when I was 6-9 I was extremly enthusiastic about stacking the beers in our refrigerator, just to see how fast, organized, and efficiently, I could do it. And Red Star (wheater it was a joke or not) had the idea of instead of shelves big shipping carts; that's exactly how we need to think on how to overcome such problems, atleast to question "Why does it have to be this way?". Also if we had volunteer child labour, they would be contributing society and could make food (by working) for themselves thus further destroying the classic reactionary "family" where the man rules all.

[monkeydust]

But when you're 6-9 you just can't reach most of them damn shelves!

[bunk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 09:49 AM
But when you're 6-9 you just can't reach most of them damn shelves!
they can clamber on each other to reach the higher shelves.. ;)

[werewolf]

Unless you are intimately familiar with the next-door neighbor's family details, you couldn't possible know if they are "getting away" with anything.
If you knew these people, you would not be protecting them. I on the other hand do know these people and they cheat not only the government, but everyone that lives on the block around them. I believe in fighting against the government, various forms of protest, etc., but sitting on your rear like some monarch is not something we should be supporting. To top it off, these people are not only lazy, they are racist, at least half of their family (not just a guess, I know this to be true) are members of the Klan.

Hard work wins victories.

[Roses in the Hospital]

But when you're 6-9 you just can't reach most of them damn shelves!

they can clamber on each other to reach the higher shelves.. wink.gif

Or we could genetically engineer super 6 - 9 olds who could reach...

No? I'll get my coat...

[Taboo Tongue]

Originally posted by Roses in the Hospital+Jul 6 2005, 08:37 AM--> (Roses in the Hospital @ Jul 6 2005, 08:37 AM)
But when you're 6-9 you just can't reach most of them damn shelves!
they can clamber on each other to reach the higher shelves.. wink.gif
Or we could genetically engineer super 6 - 9 olds who could reach...[/b]
God forbid they use step ladders like every other grocery store does.
http://www.kitchensource.com/step-stools/images/pd-1102-05.jpg

Edit:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v174/TabooTongue/Pixelated.jpg

/\ Me putting away the beer. You can barley see the box at the bottom. (Pixelated face because I know we are not supposed to put pictures of ourselves here; you can kinda still see the smile on my face).


RedStar's Proceeding post
They should know that all the stuff around them didn't "just happen"...that people had to work to create all that stuff and keep it going.


Apperently your school never had feild trips ;) . It is a good idea but I don't see how this will help solve any larger problem except maybe, like stacking shelves with entusiasm.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v174/TabooTongue/TumbsUp.gif

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Taboo Tongue
But what about Volunteer Child Labour.

That's a good point.

The main reason that communists oppose child labor is that it quickly reduces itself under capitalism to something very close to slavery; in Asia and Africa, it's routine practice to work even small children 12-14 hours a day and "pay them" "room and board"...a space next to their machine to sleep and a few bowls of plain rice to eat. And no education, of course...these kids grow up (if they survive) completely illiterate.

In a communist society, I see no reason why kids of 10 or older should not have some kind of introduction to productive labor as part of their education. They should know that all the stuff around them didn't "just happen"...that people had to work to create all that stuff and keep it going.

A couple of hours a week at some simple task that needs to be done would help to create an internalized appreciation of productive labor. (Remember to thank them profusely at the end of each task! Positive feedback does wonders for people's morale...including kids.)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[werewolf]

I started working when I was 12. My first job was as a gardener for the landlord of the apartment I lived in at the time. I agree, a little work here and there starting between the ages of 10 and 13 is a great way to learn. In fact if you start young, work actually becomes addicting. (that's good or bad......currently at my job I never take "real" breaks.....I always find something helpful to do)