Incentive for good products?

[bed_of_nails]

I was engaged in a discussion with a capitalist today when they offered one point I did not know the answer to: what is the incentive to produce a good product?

If worker A makes product X but does not use product X, what is the incentive for him to make a superior (or even good) product?

There is the possibility they will feel the urge to do the best of their ability, but I need a better answer than that.

[violencia.Proletariat]

what would be the point of have assing your job? what are we speaking of here because lots of products dont require lots of specilization that if not cared about will make the product "bad". and if we are speaking of luxuries, they take part in the process to gain luxuries, so making a shitty product would be self defeating. you offer shitty products youll get them in return.

[bed_of_nails]

Yes, but their argument is if one person decides to do their job well and make great products, the other workers have no incentive.

Whats the point in whole-assing your job?

This question really stumped me.

[JKP]

This should answer your questions.

Read this.:

http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083202823&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Also covers who will do undesirable jobs.

[bed_of_nails]

No. I will not be redirected to one response for a question like this.

People need to summarize and talk instead of just linking to Marx or Redstar.

[Reds]

When under socialism with workers control of factorys shall be there incentive becase haveing the worker control the factorys creates higher job satisfaction so the worker takes more care in his job.

btw I am just useing factories as an example this could work for any industry or service.

[bed_of_nails]

But Higher Job Satisfaction doesnt necessarily mean the product will increase.

I can be happy with my job and not working to my maximum capabilities.

[JKP]

Okay, lets say a factory makes a shitty product. Once word gets out (like on internet review sites) people will stop picking up items from that particular producer(decentralization and autonomy).

At that point, the factory producing crap had better improve, or they will stop recieving materials from other collectives. Afterall, who wants to waste resources on a poor performing collective, when they could focus on others.

[Connolly]

what is the incentive to produce a good product?

A machine needs incentives to work? :huh:



If worker A makes product X but does not use product X, what is the incentive for him to make a superior (or even good) product?

Manual Labour? :huh:


There is the possibility they will feel the urge to do the best of their ability, but I need a better answer than that.

Dont worry about that, just feed the machine a bit of hydraulic oil and spark and it will work at the best of its ability alllllllllll daaaaaaay looong!!!!!!!! :D

But really, an incentive to work is not necessary as man will no longer have to work!..............Communism is based on a higher form of production where advancement is so great that production, services and distribution are automated.

I feel this type of topic seems to bring up ridiculus explanations that have no material basis whatsoever.

Simple: Think higher mode of production - worker eliminated.

TRB

[violencia.Proletariat]

idk see why this would be a problem, its happening right now under capitalism, and our civilizations are coming to a hault.

[STI]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 2 2005, 06:47 PM

what is the incentive to produce a good product?

A machine needs incentives to work? :huh:



If worker A makes product X but does not use product X, what is the incentive for him to make a superior (or even good) product?

Manual Labour? :huh:


There is the possibility they will feel the urge to do the best of their ability, but I need a better answer than that.

Dont worry about that, just feed the machine a bit of hydraulic oil and spark and it will work at the best of its ability alllllllllll daaaaaaay looong!!!!!!!! :D

But really, an incentive to work is not necessary as man will no longer have to work!..............Communism is based on a higher form of production where advancement is so great that production, services and distribution are automated.

I feel this type of topic seems to bring up ridiculus explanations that have no material basis whatsoever.

Simple: Think higher mode of production - worker eliminated.

TRB
You seem to have this vision of communism as a world of incredible technological advancement, to the point where any human labour makes it "not communism", and I'm really wondering where you got this idea.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:01 AM
Yes, but their argument is if one person decides to do their job well and make great products, the other workers have no incentive.

Whats the point in whole-assing your job?

This question really stumped me.
One of the main characteristics of our jobs in capitalism is our alienation from the rest of production. Many people react to this alienation by not careing and trying to do as little work as possible; who can blame them? In a factory or an office, unless you are getting some kind of comission, what's the point of working harder or doing a better job? If you increase your personal production at an office or factory, then your bosses will always expect you and your co-workers to produce at that level but you will most likely not see any direct benifit from working harder.

But the people who run businesses work hard and if they produce better, then they reap the benifits of better production. In a worker-democracy, this means that if you work harder and the factory produces more, then the workers get to decide what to do with the surpluss.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:10 PM
You seem to have this vision of communism as a world of incredible technological advancement, to the point where any human labour makes it "not communism", and I'm really wondering where you got this idea.
I think his post is a bit exaggerated, but to a certain extent, I agree that the incentive for some jobs would be to do away with thoes jobs alltogether.

Eliminating or minimizing "sh**-jobs" would be one of the first tasks of workers, in my opinion. Marketing or sales jobs could be done away with almost immediately and I'm sure people skilled as salespeople could use thoes skills to be good teachers or something else which actually benifits people rather than makes profits for companies.

Other unpleasant, but necissary jobs would still have to be done, but I think workers would have the intrest in making thoese upleasant jobs obsolete so that people could spend time persuing the things they wanted to do rather than things which have to be done. So technology could be employed to allow workers to work less (rather than just get fired like in capitalism) and workers could figure out how to make unpleasant jobs more efficient in our intrests rather than efficiency in the intersts of making money.

Garbage needs to be collected, but instead of having a group of people do this full time all the time, maybe workers could decide make a neiborhood trash collection point. You could have a big compactor and a big neiborhood dumpster, so then trash collectors only have to come to one point in each neiborhood rather than to each house.

Maybe this idea wouldn't work, but the point is, if everyone was thinking about how to make our lives more enjoyable and more free-time to do what we wanted, then that would be the incentive to do a good job and innovate.

[KC]

Why would people half-ass their jobs if they enjoy what they're doing?

[Connolly]

You seem to have this vision of communism

You seem to be inflexible to change or individual theory. Most of Marxist and Anarchist theory were developed around a period were the possibility of a computer was beyond imagination. If you want to remain in the past then so be it.................But production and material conditions will advance.


However, if you adapt and add on to Marxist/Anarchist theory using present knowledge, a whole new system is materially possible.................What is so difficult about the idea of automated production and distribution?...........Something that is clearly developing at a rapid pace in todays society.

You name the job and I could give an explanation as to how it could be automated or materialistically eliminated, even using my knowledge of only todays technology and production.........................Go ahead.............(except for maybe something like a Doctor - for which a whole new explanation can be given if you want)


as a world of incredible technological advancement

A world of incredible technological advancement?.....................You are merely showing your own particular ignorance towards present material conditions.


to the point where any human labour makes it "not communism",

You phrase this in a ridiculous way.......................To suggest that necessary manual labour is needed is pure rubbish....................Sorry to repeat this question again, as I have to so many times :rolleyes: ,................... but do you agree that a change in the means of production is necessary for socialist/communist revolution?

If so, what form will this production take?

What is your materialist basis for this form?

If you understand what you are talking about when answering the above questions, you will find that logically this production is automation - ie. the elimination of the worker. From this form of production stems automated distribution etc etc etc.............................................if you do not find automation as the next material step for production then ether you are stuck in the past with Marxs form of production with the steam loom and manual operation of machinary or you just plain and simply dont understand materialism.


I think his post is a bit exaggerated, but to a certain extent, I agree that the incentive for some jobs would be to do away with thoes jobs alltogether.


why is it a bit exaggerated?................As I said above, you name the job and could nearly automate or rid the lot using todays technology, never mind the future possibilities...................


You see, your arguments are so out dated and obsolete because you are all still using 18th and 19th century methods of production and their material out comes.

Please, If you do undersatnd materialism, come back to todays reality of material progression and production.......

TRB

[KC]

I'm sorry but all jobs can't be automated.

[Connolly]

I'm sorry but all jobs can't be automated.

I know that. But the overwhelming amount of manual jobs can. Materially for example - The brick layer, currently being replaced by prefabricated construction parts, walls, supports, etc. - The carpenter, rapidly being replaced, by again, prefabricated furniture, kitchen units, doors made from chip board or milled using automated machines. - The station master, replaced by automated ticket dispencers. - The assembly worker, replaced by automated assembly machines. - The orange picker, replaced by single manned mass tree shakers. - The lorry/train/harvester driver, will/can be replaced with automatic units (experimented and successful by MIT) - The railway signal man, now replaced by automatic signal control. - The air traffic controller, talk about reform of the system going about using automated control, various reasons holding this back. - The tunnel borer, no longer a mass of workers but a semi automatic machine. - The coal mining equipment, again semi automated. ...............on and on and on....

Using todays technology!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What cannot be automated or eliminated all together?..........with the exceptions of a few careers, for which present technology hasnt opened our eyes too.

Your statement is short with no real argument, be it technological or materialist.

[Led Zeppelin]

I was engaged in a discussion with a capitalist today when they offered one point I did not know the answer to: what is the incentive to produce a good product?

If worker A makes product X but does not use product X, what is the incentive for him to make a superior (or even good) product?

There is the possibility they will feel the urge to do the best of their ability, but I need a better answer than that.

In the USSR there was a governmental agency which checked the quality of produced goods.

Obviously that method works, the quality of goods produced in the USSR were superior to the quality of goods in the US.

Just look at their arms race, the USSR's arms were far superior.

[Connolly]

the quality of goods produced in the USSR

I wont get offensive, however you are mistaken. I agree the military sector had quite a good arsenal, but just look at the goods the plebs had to use.

The Lada for example. (many good points I must say, also the 3rd best selling car of all time). But compared to that of the west, the Lada was a load of shit - just ask any mechanic, and iv asked three. Because of certain restrictions, except for government ministers (mercedes, RollsRoyce), the majority of people had no option but to buy the Lada.

Competition is needed for the improvement of products. (this can be reversed of course as competition to a certain extent reduces the class of a product in some cases).

[Led Zeppelin]

But compared to that of the west, the Lada was a load of shit - just ask any mechanic, and iv asked three.

The US tanks like the Sherman were a load of shit compared to the T-34, the space shuttle had to be grounded for a few months, instead they used Russian rockets from the USSR era to supply the ISA, so they were capable of making better products.


Competition is needed for the improvement of products.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with competition of ideas.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 5 2005, 11:48 AM
Obviously that method works, the quality of goods produced in the USSR were superior to the quality of goods in the US.

Just look at their arms race, the USSR's arms were far superior.
you're kidding, right?

maybe initially after ww2, but by the end of the cold war, the west had FAR supieror weapons

[Led Zeppelin]

you're kidding, right?

No.


maybe initially after ww2, but by the end of the cold war, the west had FAR supieror weapons

What are you talking about? Russia still has the most advanced tanks in the world today, same goes for small arms and helicopters.

The US has superior aircrafts though.

[visceroid]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 8 2005, 05:54 AM

you're kidding, right?

No.


maybe initially after ww2, but by the end of the cold war, the west had FAR supieror weapons

What are you talking about? Russia still has the most advanced tanks in the world today, same goes for small arms and helicopters.

The US has superior aircrafts though.
they may have had a good military, but everything else was shit, you ignored the response about the cars

[Led Zeppelin]

they may have had a good military, but everything else was shit

This can't be true, it's so unlikely that I would say it's impossible.


you ignored the response about the cars

I ignored it because i'm not a mechanic, I don't know shit about cars.

For all I know he made that shit up.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Why would people half-ass their jobs if they enjoy what they're doing?

Would you ever enjoy cleaning the sewers?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected] 10 2005, 04:29 PM
I ignored it because i'm not a mechanic, I don't know shit about cars.

For all I know he made that shit up.
You never heard of Ladas? I thought they were world famous for being, quite possibly, the worst cars ever made :P

But on the topic at hand, surely there will be more incentives to produce when there is no capitalist class leeching of the workers.