The incentive to work

[Redmau5]

I know this question has been brought up a million times, but it's the only thing that still gets to me about communism. What will be the incentive to work? I know some people will be really interested in science and will therefore want to pursue a career in science, but what about doctors etc.? Why should they work so hard going through medication courses and exams when they can live an equally good life collecting litter off the streets ?

[coda]

the same incentive as why you pursue revolution without getting paid for it -- because you want society to be better so that people as well as yourself will have a better life. i'm sure all these things will be decided on aptitude as well as interest.

[Reds]

Look at it like this way if the guys in charge of fixin the roads have no cement and you work to help them get cement then your reward is good roads to drive on.

[Decolonize The Left]

The idea behind anarchism-communism is freedom, liberty and equality. The incentive comes from personal desire. Many people want to be doctors simply for the reason of helping people, but can't for lack of education, etc...

Doctors will still be highly respected, but because they save lives, not because they make lots of money. And as you said, people who collect litter off the streets will be respected as well, because they help prevent the spread of disease, and keep the streets clean for all of us to enjoy.

-- August

[ComradeRed]

Well, most people like to do what they want to. My brother is a doctor because he likes medicine; he doesn't use any get rich quick scheme by charging exorbatant amounts of money for crappy labor.

Curiously this scenario occurs most frequently under capitalism...people are screwed over by this "good" motivation for "unlimited wealth".

Most people choose a job they like...why would that change?

[Decolonize The Left]

Most people choose a job they like...why would that change?


Since most people don't freely choose their job, and others don't even choose at all really, there isn't much to change is there?

Not to mention you totally misunderstood my post. I was not saying become doctors because they only want to get rich, I know many don't, but many do as well. And this goes for other highly-paid professions.

Furthermore, my whole point was that personal desire should be the incentive for all. Not just some "good souls" and others can exploit everyone they possibly can. This latter situation only exists under capitalism where money and profit has been made to be the ultimate success.

-- August

[Connolly]

Keep in mind that the capitalist mode of production needs wage labour, therefore holding back any technological improvement to the means of production. In a communist society, the means of production will be free to develop to any height, eventually replacing huge amounts of the work force, if not all, with the exception of a few careers that may not be techno-compatable.
So to answer your question, the motivation to work could come in many forms, 1. Less hours +- 2 per week (really unpredictable at this stage). 2. The possibility to not work at all, keeping in mind that some people like to work to pass the time (even under capitalist oppression). And 3. really the posts above, with the ideas of freedom, desire etc.... Although I would personally favour motivation in my points 1 and 2.

[Enragé]

an equally good life collecting litter off the streets

who says picking up trash is so much fun?

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:00 PM

an equally good life collecting litter off the streets

who says picking up trash is so much fun?


I'd say it would be extremely less stressful than being a doctor.

And I know most people who become doctor's enjoy studying medicine etc., but money is usually still a factor.

[Decolonize The Left]

1. Less hours +- 2 per week (really unpredictable at this stage).

In theory yes. But most likely in the early stages of society it would be around 2-3 a day. Remember we would have to re-build a country, but eventually it would decrease, I dunno about 2 a week, but not much.


2. The possibility to not work at all

Define "not work at all". Do you mean literally do nothing all day? Surely not. People work in all ways, art is work when you share it with the community or give it to others.



who says picking up trash is so much fun?

I never said picking up trash is "fun". And very few jobs are "fun". They can be interesting, but rarely "fun", not to mention fun is subjective. But anyway I'll re-post what I wrote earlier about this:

And as you said, people who collect litter off the streets will be respected as well, because they help prevent the spread of disease, and keep the streets clean for all of us to enjoy.
This doesn't mention fun, but it does explain why people might be more inclined to look highly upon these sort of jobs which are shunned in capitalist society.

-- August

[Rissen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 01:00 PM
who says picking up trash is so much fun?
I personally, would enjoy it as a chance to get away from everything, and to give me some time to be alone with my thoughts.

Sorry, just my two... minutes...

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And I know most people who become doctor's enjoy studying medicine etc., but money is usually still a factor.

Not in Cuba.

[anomaly]

The incentive to work will not change under communism. Throughout human history, we have worked to survive. No work=death. In capitalism, we need profit to survive, and so we work for profit. In communism, we will work strictly for human use. If we don't work, we have nothing to consume, and so we die. And so, in short, the choice in communism (as it has always been) is work or die. I can go a bit more in depth, if you would like...

[Decolonize The Left]

We do not need profit to survive. Profit is extra, it is what's left over from what we need to survive.

-- August

[Connolly]

In theory yes. But most likely in the early stages of society it would be around 2-3 a day. Remember we would have to re-build a country, but eventually it would decrease, I dunno about 2 a week, but not much.

Well, I believed we were discussing motivation to work in a communist society, not a socialist one. The world would be rebuilt and sufficient improvements made to the means of production to replace the worker, would be done during the socialist transition of society. So, during the early stages of communist society, the technology will already have been applied.
Maybe 2 hours per week could be fantasy, but really we cant tell. But just think about the replacement of the manual worker, and the distribution of work hours throughout the populous (including those unemployed throughout the third world), heck!! it would be very little work required from each person, if any.


Define "not work at all". Do you mean literally do nothing all day? Surely not. People work in all ways, art is work when you share it with the community or give it to others.

Unless you have no hobby or intrests, then yes, do nothing all day. Why will most people need to work? Judging by even todays discoverys and present technology, if applied to the means of production, it could achieve near total automation. The discovery of being able to, in a way, produce meat in a factory without the need for animals (just recently been shown on Sky News) would do away with cattle farmers. The ability to allow cars, trucks or any road or field vehical to drive by itself has also been done. Modern day passenger aircraft can, in bad weather, land themselves. How we build structures/houses is changing slowly with the discovery of prefabricated, factory made components, which would do away with the brick layer. Much of these transformations will occur under capitalism as it tries to reduce labour costs, its all unfolfing!!!!. I could go on and on listing possible ways to apply technology to every day working/manual jobs, but eventually it will sort itself out. Who knows what advances in science we wil make in the future?
And art, well, I suppose you could call it work, but in my opinion it would go under hobby. I was really talking about main production, as in those like farming, construction etc....

[Decolonize The Left]

But just think about the replacement of the manual worker, and the distribution of work hours throughout the populous (including those unemployed throughout the third world), heck!! it would be very little work required from each person, if any.

Very true. But forget not as well the millions who employed in meaningless capitalist jobs. Bankers, accountants, traders, stock brokers, etc... These people are a whole new workforce as well!


I could go on and on listing possible ways to apply technology to every day working/manual jobs, but eventually it will sort itself out. Who knows what advances in science we wil make in the future?

Very true again. I think we are on the same page here. I simply think it will take longer to totally remove people from physical labor. I think directly following the revolution there will need to be massive changes in labor to allow the worker control of his/her factory(ies).


And art, well, I suppose you could call it work, but in my opinion it would go under hobby. I was really talking about main production, as in those like farming, construction etc....

Fair enough, but then you would need to note that if people were not working, they would be contributing to society in many other ways, not just sitting with their thumbs up their asses.
People would be gardening, painting, drawing, writing, talking, singing, playing, and with total freedom. They would share with others because it would make all life better.

-- August

[Axel1917]

Another thing is that with democratic planning, as well as free education, work would no longer be an annoyance as it is today; people would not have to struggle from paycheck to paycheck, they could easily learn other jobs and such, of which would allow them to work in mutilple fields on different days, the working day would be shorter, yet more productive etc.

Also, if money is the only reason for incentive as the capitalists assert, then why isn't everyone going to school to become a doctor something like that?

[Dean]

Remember that laziness is a disease of capitalism: when a worker is alienated from the product of his labor, his labor loses any kind of allure or integrity - why should he want to work if he is not in control of the final product of his labor?

[Connolly]

Remember that laziness is a disease of capitalism: when a worker is alienated from the product of his labor, his labor loses any kind of allure or integrity - why should he want to work if he is not in control of the final product of his labor?

He wouldnt be alienated from the product of his labour because there would be no direct product of his labour, unless you are the designer, of which very few will be needed.
As I said before, Why should he work? ( if so, so little it wouldnt deserve the name work.)
Marx could never have imagined the technology that we have today. Things have changed since then. You speek of the "product of his labour", as if production needs some human interferance, of course only minor. If a human technician/engineer comes to maintain the machine of advaced production (if a machine of advanced production needs maintaining at all), he might possibly be the only person involved in the whole process from start to finish. The product of his labour would be the up keep and smooth functioning of the machine, not the actual item produced from the machine, that would be the product of the machines "labour". Unless the worker is someone like a doctor, of which I imagine it would be difficult to replace by technology (but never say never), the product of his labour is the patients recovery and well being, therefore giving self satisfaction and maintaining "allure and integrity". Drop this idea that the workers must have direct involvement in the product, its production, its design, that is the thought of the past. The socialization and advacement of the means of production will ensure that no one worker, only collective decision, will have direct control of the final product. Its hardly going to be some workshop, similar to that of feudal times, where the craftsman puts time and effort into making, lets say oh, a fork, and reeps the satisfaction and glory fo his craftsmanship.


Bankers, accountants, traders, stock brokers, etc... These people are a whole new workforce as well!

Spot on!


Fair enough, but then you would need to note that if people were not working, they would be contributing to society in many other ways, not just sitting with their thumbs up their asses.
People would be gardening, painting, drawing, writing, talking, singing, playing, and with total freedom. They would share with others because it would make all life better.

That is the general superiority of the communist society, freedom to choose ones own direction in life.

[Dean]

He wouldnt be alienated from the product of his labour because there would be no direct product of his labour, unless you are the designer, of which very few will be needed.
As I said before, Why should he work? ( if so, so little it wouldnt deserve the name work.)
Marx could never have imagined the technology that we have today. Things have changed since then. You speek of the "product of his labour", as if production needs some human interferance, of course only minor. If a human technician/engineer comes to maintain the machine of advaced production (if a machine of advanced production needs maintaining at all), he might possibly be the only person involved in the whole process from start to finish. The product of his labour would be the up keep and smooth functioning of the machine, not the actual item produced from the machine, that would be the product of the machines "labour". Unless the worker is someone like a doctor, of which I imagine it would be difficult to replace by technology (but never say never), the product of his labour is the patients recovery and well being, therefore giving self satisfaction and maintaining "allure and integrity". Drop this idea that the workers must have direct involvement in the product, its production, its design, that is the thought of the past. The socialization and advacement of the means of production will ensure that no one worker, only collective decision, will have direct control of the final product. Its hardly going to be some workshop, similar to that of feudal times, where the craftsman puts time and effort into making, lets say oh, a fork, and reeps the satisfaction and glory fo his craftsmanship.


Alienation of labor does not have to originate from technological conditions; in fact, the real, important aspect of this alienation is that of control, not all in all but in relation to other members of society. If I simply push a button on a machine, it is more important whether or not I can work with others in decidinmg how the factory (and outwardly the society) should be run than it is important how interactive the job in itself is.

[Connolly]

Alienation of labor does not have to originate from technological conditions

I agree that alienation of labour does not come from technological conditions. But, alienation of labour comes about from the worker putting himself, or under capitalism, forced into the position of labour, his need or want to control the final product, his interaction with the production. The need for anyone to put substantial amounts of time into the production of a product under the communist mode would be all but eradicated. If you are not involved with production then you cant be alienated from it.

Technological conditions are very important when discussing the alienation of the majority from the product they may (or in a communist society, may not) produce. Unless the majority of society are trained to be design engineers or technical experts, then no they wouldnt control the final product of production, of which the CAD "blue-prints" created by the design engineer, or indeed a machine, are fed into a computer processor for production. What I mean to say is, and I must say, badly, very very few people would actually "work" the means of production or even need to work at all. In order for communism to be achieved, a radical change in the means of production and associated technologies would need to develop and come about. Factory conditions that we know of today would be completey strange compared to that of the communist mode. Too much emphasis is placed on the idea of a factory with long socialized production lines of workers, assembling, testing and controlling the final product, that is the capitalist mode. If there is a need to control the product to ensure it is of good quality and that it satisfies the needs of the majority, and minority, then control would be based similarly to that of the capitalist method of need, satisfaction of the final product, its quality etc... - all based on initial surveys, technological advances and discoveries of the society. In short, they wouldnt be alienated from something they dont produce or are not involved with. (I am speaking in respect to the overwhelming majority of people in a communist society who wouldnt be involved in working the means of production, as they wouldnt really need to.)


it is more important whether or not I can work with others in decidinmg how the factory (and outwardly the society) should be run than it is important how interactive the job in itself is.

The person who pushes the button should not decide what initial product should be produced, but the society decides, which, in turn decides the way the factory is run. Nothing much to do with the "workers" (design engineer) need to control the final product, he simply takes their initial need and transforms it to a final product of their need. The worker losing control of a product and being alienated from it is very much part of the socialization of manufacture, until the need for the worker is no more, and with the worker his alienation.

How do you mean work with others? as in a long socialized production line of workers. Of which there would be none. As in a factory with many occupants of which there would be none?

[Dean]

Basically, my meaning is that the important part of alienation of a worker from the product of his labor is the lack of control over the economy, and the democratic control is what I refer to in talking of laborers "working together."