Laziness at work

[wielki_piec]

I'm from a "post-soviet" contry like Slovakia, Poland, Romania. Most of poeple who lived at times called "real socialism" remember, that the most characteristic thing in this polictical order was... laziness.
Peolpe in socilism know, that they've got guarantee of having a job, so (like in SU at '70's and '80's) they don't care about the quality and become rude.

My question is: is it possible to make poelpe effective, to cure them from "socilistic laziness"? And how to do it?

I'm opening a discussion.

[KC]

My question is: is it possible to make poelpe effective, to cure them from "socilistic laziness"? And how to do it?


Of course it's possible. But it requires an immense amount of rewiring of society. Society would have to be structured so work is honored, and people that don't work are looked down upon. Respect/Social Acceptance are the rewards of working in a communist society. Proof of this lies in primitive communist societies (Bushmen, Hottentot, Eskimos, etc...).

[wielki_piec]

Of course it's possible.

So what was the reason of laziness and disappoinment of work style in SU and soviet-domination countries? Was it only a lack of ideology? People often said then that it's impossible to learn people a completely new order, even if it's correct and positive. Did real revolution of lifestyle and ideology, which was succesful ever appeared in history?

[KC]

So what was the reason of laziness and disappoinment of work style in SU and soviet-domination countries? Was it only a lack of ideology? People often said then that it's impossible to learn people a completely new order, even if it's correct and positive. Did real revolution of lifestyle and ideology, which was succesful ever appeared in history?

The reason the Soviet Union had this problem was because it didn't change much. The form of government changed, yes. But that is about it. Society didn't change. People were still living in a capitalist society. The Leninist dream failed.

[polemi-super-cised]

I think the basic idea is, that under capitalism, the working class is alienated from the means of production; labour (i.e. "work") becomes oppressive, hence the resistance to it (a "primitve" form of class-consciousness).

Communist society seeks to restore to the proletariat the dignity associated with it's labour. It reunites the mental and physical aspects of "working", which are kept forcibly apart in today's world - to conclude, it places the workers in control of their own destiny.

The Soviet Union did indeed fail: exploitation and class-struggle remained, the proletariat was never fully liberated. "Laziness" in the workplace was only one manifestation of this failure.

Communism represents the highest yet-known state of productive forces. Rather than being held as a slave to the forces of the market, and the intricate dealings of the capitalist machine, the working class produces by itself and for itself... Consumerables, technological innovations, and all forms of art and / or culture experience a massive advance, as the "shackles" of class society are overthrown.

Remember kids: laziness is counter-revolutionary! :P

[redstar2000]

Socialism is a form of class society. It should more properly be called state-monopoly capitalism.

As such, people work for a wage and purchase their necessities in a market.

It is therefore in their direct material interest to do as little work as possible in exchange for as much money as possible.

A "lucky" Polish worker, like a "lucky" American worker, who was able to find a job that he or she really enjoyed and that paid enough to live in material dignity probably worked very hard indeed.

"Laziness" is not a problem under such circumstances.

The growing complexity of modern class societies allows for a gradually increasing number of such jobs...but most jobs remain pure drudgery that "no one would do" if they had a chance at anything better.

Communism proposes an entirely different arrangement.

Your "job" is something that you freely choose...you do it for the intrinsic pleasure of that kind of work.

Or even simply to relieve the boredom of "sitting around doing nothing".

Your material needs will be satisfied no matter what you do or don't do.

That's what the abolition of wage-slavery means.

The capitalist response to this proposal is exactly what you would expect:

Everyone will lie in the grass and look at the pretty clouds.

They think that "no one will work unless their survival depends on it".

The hypocrisy of this argument is revealed in their own behavior. Some of them boast of their "80-hour work weeks"...even though they already have enough wealth to live "like a Czar" for the next ten centuries!

In other words, they enjoy their work.

This is, for the most part, a class privilege in all forms of class society.

Communism proposes that this privilege shall be the right of every person born into a communist society.

But who will do all the shitty, boring jobs?

Many of those jobs are socially unnecessary and will be abolished entirely. Those that remain that we think must be done will be filled by volunteers who grasp their social necessity.

How this is to be organized will be determined by the revolutionary proletariat itself. Anything we'd say "in detail" now would just be speculation.

But I think you should be clear about the general principle.

It is an unfortunate "accident" of history that the regimes and parties descended from the Leninist coup of October 1917 bear the label "communist"...because they were never anything of the sort.

Well, we have to live with that...at least for the time being. I think we'll probably end up selecting a new word to describe what Marx and Engels actually wanted and expected to happen.

Or we'll simply wait until the memory of the USSR, Inc. and all of its "subsidiaries" finally fades from human memory.

That will happen, you know. :)

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

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

You really can't talk about work in a communist society. Work is wage labor today, and it is hard to separate the word "work" from the experience of wage labor. Of course no one would work unless they had the threat of unemployment hanging over their heads. It is forced. But more than that. It is time that doesn't belong to us, controlled by someone else, for a purpose that is not our own, creating a power that dominates us and impoverishes our lives. Communism would break down the separation between work and play (without which it makes no sense to talk of "work"). Productive activity would no longer be controlled from the outside by inhuman laws, but would be human. The point is that communism would remake society on a very fundamental level, and there would no longer be a question of "how to get peole to work". Let me post a little thing Marx wrote about productive activity under communism:

"Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man's essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man's essential nature. 3) I would have been for you the mediator between you and the species, and therefore would become recognised and felt by you yourself as a completion of your own essential nature and as a necessary part of yourself, and consequently would know myself to be confirmed both in your thought and your love. 4) In the individual expression of my life I would have directly created your expression of your life, and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly confirmed and realised my true nature, my human nature, my communal nature. Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature."

[KC]

Socialism is a form of class society. It should more properly be called state-monopoly capitalism.


If you go by the Leninist definition of socialism, yes.

[Nathe]

well... take capitalism, a fisherman in capitalism gets paid a flat rate. weather he catches 50 fish, or 5 fish, he will always get paid a flat hourly rate. now take communism. a fisherman who catches 50 fish gets more fish to eat, and more to share around then if he catches 5 fish.
beurocratic socialism, though, there really is no incentive, besides more work means more to share! but not much though

[wielki_piec]

But who will do all the shitty, boring jobs?

Many of those jobs are socially unnecessary and will be abolished entirely. Those that remain that we think must be done will be filled by volunteers who grasp their social necessity.

Volunteers... Beautiful idea, but how high the quality of social revolution should be to find these volunteers? Freud said that majority of people will always look to "play truant" and avoid job. So it would really be something historically unforgetable to make a society proud of its work. But lets us think what is the machnism of making an integrated community(integrated with the same political opinions). I will use an example which may not be known by you. In Poland works a radio which is called "Radio Maryja" . It is often said to be anty-jewish, politicaly orthodox, untolerant and pseudochirstian. It is listened by large group of older people, who want to "make an order", who don't understand the nessesity of having a modern, democratic and self-resobonsible contry.
Why did I write that example. I want to suggest, or maybe ask: gruop based on self-cooperation are often being established at times which are negative for them. So it should be made with socialistic society - unitig to win with common problem. So why it didn't happen? Is it only because of poor knowledge about socialism? Or maybe again it's a laziness, caused by that if you work in socialist society you should respect others' work?

[Hegemonicretribution]

This is a difficult topic to explain, because it cannot be done in the usual way of observations and theory, at least sufficiently. Freud can say whatever he wants, but all observations drawn about human characteristics were performed in a society based on conflict. Marxists basically draw the problems of society down to the factor of class antagonisms, and seek to abolish these, as they are seen as the source of the problem.

It seems difficult to accept Marxism as a theory when it has never been successfully applied, and does seem a little wishy washy, but I capitalism is built on the concept of an "invisible hand" guiding the markets according to laws of supply and demand. Capitalism implies that because greed is instinctive, it can harness this for the good of society. People are encouraged to act upon their greed, and aspire to higher places in society. This is a failing of capitalism, because people do not do this, they simply find a position (in most cases) that satisfies their material needs (both real and perceived).

This is not the end of the world though, because some do aspire towards amassing material wealth. Of course if you take the concept of ownership out of the equation, then where for this drive? The goal here is to replace a perceived material want, for a different want, perhaps status? Not that anything has to be attached to it, it can be just that, recognition for good work. This is what drives scentists in true breakthrough areas, this is what drives many people when there is no material benifit. Remember the economic side will already have fulfilled material wants. This again is why this is difficult, because this theory has to be examined holistically.

Class consciousness requires the realisation of the proletariat, that society is not working for their benifit, yet they (in most cases) are working to support it. If it is a proletarian revolution, not a "representitive" bourgeois coup, then this is realised. When class conscience is established, then there will also be a realisation that work will have to continue, essentially the proletariat will become versed in economics. Self deluding ideas, such as people not working anymore are a result of a lack of class consciousness, this means no proletarian revolution, this means no socialism or communism.

Sorry I would continue this post, but I think I need to go back and edit it because I feel I los the thread somewhere.

[JKP]

Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work then they cannot (must not) be forced to. The question arises of what to do with those (a small minority, to be sure) who refuse to work.

On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists, particularly communist-anarchists, argue that the lazy should not be deprived of the means of life. Social pressure, they argue, would force those who take, but do not contribute to the community, to listen to their conscience and start producing for the community that supports them. Other anarchists are less optimistic and agree with Camillo Berneri when he argues that anarchism should be based upon "no compulsion to work, but no duty towards those who do not want to work." ["The Problem of Work", in Why Work?, Vernon Richards (ed.), p. 74] This means that an anarchist society will not continue to feed, clothe, house someone who can produce but refuses to. Most anarchists have had enough of the wealthy under capitalism consuming but not producing and do not see why they should support a new group of parasites after the revolution.

Obviously, there is a difference between not wanting to work and being unable to work. The sick, children, the old, pregnant women and so on will be looked after by their friends and family (or by the commune, as desired by those involved). As child rearing would be considered "work" along with other more obviously economic tasks, mothers and fathers will not have to leave their children unattended and work to make ends meet. Instead, consideration will be given to the needs of both parents and children as well as the creation of community nurseries and child care centres.

We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone the means of life. This would violate the voluntary labour which is at the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, the means of life will not be monopolised by any group -- including the commune. This means that someone who does not wish to join a commune or who does not pull their weight within a commune and are expelled will have access to the means of making a living outside the commune.

We stated that we stress this fact as many supporters of capitalism seem to be unable to understand this point (or prefer to ignore it and so misrepresent the anarchist position). In an anarchist society, no one will be forced to join a commune simply because they do not have access to the means of production and/or land required to work alone. Unlike capitalism, where access to these essentials of life is dependent on buying access to them from the capitalist class (and so, effectively, denied to the vast majority), an anarchist society will ensure that all have access and have a real choice between living in a commune and working independently. This access is based on the fundamental difference between possession and property -- the commune possesses as much land as it needs, as do non-members. The resources used by them are subject to the usual possession rationale -- they possess it only as long as they use it and cannot bar others using it if they do not (i.e., it is not property).

Thus an anarchist commune remains a voluntary association and ensures the end of all forms of wage slavery. The member of the commune has the choice of working as part of a community, giving according to their abilities and taking according to their needs (or some other means of organising production and consumption such as equal income or receiving labour notes, and so on), or working independently and so free of communal benefits as well as any commitments (bar those associated with using communal resources such as roads and so on).

So, in most, if not all, anarchist communities, individuals have two options, either they can join a commune and work together as equals, or they can work as an individual or independent co-operative and exchange the product of their labour with others. If an individual joins a commune and does not carry their weight, even after their fellow workers ask them to, then that person will possibly be expelled and given enough land, tools or means of production to work alone. Of course, if a person is depressed, run down or otherwise finding it hard to join in communal responsibilities then their friends and fellow workers would do everything in their power to help and be flexible in their approach to the problem.

Some anarchist communities may introduce what Lewis Mumford termed "basic communism." This means that everyone would get a basic amount of "purchasing power," regardless of productive activity. If some people were happy with this minimum of resources then they need not work. If they want access to the full benefits of the commune, then they could take part in the communal labour process. This could be a means of eliminating all forces, even communal ones, which drive a person to work and so ensure that all labour is fully voluntary (i.e. not even forced by circumstances). What method a community would use would depend on what people in that community thought was best.

It seems likely, however, that in most anarchist communities people will have to work, but how they do so will be voluntary. If people did not work then some would live off the labour of those who do work and would be a reversion to capitalism. However, most social anarchists think that the problem of people trying not to work would be a very minor one in an anarchist society. This is because work is part of human life and an essential way to express oneself. With work being voluntary and self-managed, it will become like current day hobbies and many people work harder at their hobbies than they do at "real" work (this FAQ can be considered as an example of this!). It is the nature of employment under capitalism that makes it "work" instead of pleasure. Work need not be a part of the day that we wish would end. As Kropotkin argued (and has been subsequently supported by empirical evidence), it is not work that people hate. Rather it is overwork, in unpleasant circumstances and under the control of others that people hate. Reduce the hours of labour, improve the working conditions and place the work under self-management and work will stop being a hated thing. In his own words:

"Repugnant tasks will disappear, because it is evident that these unhealthy conditions are harmful to society as a whole. Slaves can submit to them, but free men create new conditions, and their work will be pleasant and infinitely more productive. The exceptions of today will be the rule of tomorrow." [The Conquest of Bread, p. 123]

This, combined with the workday being shortened, will help ensure that only an idiot would desire to work alone. As Malatesta argued, the "individual who wished to supply his own material needs by working alone would be the slave of his labours." [The Anarchist Revolution, p. 15]

So, enlightened self-interest would secure the voluntary labour and egalitarian distribution anarchists favour in the vast majority of the population. The parasitism associated with capitalism would be a thing of the past. Thus the problem of the "lazy" person fails to understand the nature of humanity nor the revolutionising effects of freedom and a free society on the nature and content of work.

Faq 1.4

"Basic communism" is probably the most pragmatic option.

[Storming Heaven]

well... take capitalism, a fisherman in capitalism gets paid a flat rate. weather he catches 50 fish, or 5 fish, he will always get paid a flat hourly rate. now take communism. a fisherman who catches 50 fish gets more fish to eat, and more to share around then if he catches 5 fish.
beurocratic socialism, though, there really is no incentive, besides more work means more to share! but not much though

Nathe has hit the nail on the head here...more to eat is always a good thing, and in a society where sharing means surviving, more to share is good too! The problem in Poland seems to be that people found that by being lazy they could obtain the same reward for less effort... it paid (almost literally) to be lazy! In a communist society, there would be no bureaucracy distributing goods/payments...so the amount a person would have to eat and to share would be dependent on the work they did.


But who will do all the shitty, boring jobs?

As is well known, Capitalists often complain that no-one in a completely voluntary society would clean toilets, etc. because of the lack of reward. The fact that the people who do these jobs are amongst the lowest paid in capitalist society should render this criticism void straight away, but I will continue. In a communist society, I think that people would want to do these jobs...simply because they are necessary. Witness that when they want to take a piss, most people use the proper facilities rather than urinating where they stand, despite the latter being the easier option!

[wielki_piec]

I think it was Aldous Huxley who said that it would be very bad idea to repalace workers by machines, because people simply need to do something, work or etc. So... maybe the really would do all this "shitty work", but I think that now it is impossible. I'm very glad to hear about volunteers, but can world be based only on volunteers?

Isn't laziness a "buid-up" into human beings? Hope that not. But how may expamples may confirm that(in a greater scale, I mean)

[Storming Heaven]

Isn't laziness a "buid-up" into human beings? Hope that not. But how may expamples may confirm that(in a greater scale, I mean)

I think you mean 'built-into'...

Laziness isn't built-into people in an unchangable way, that is it's not part of 'human nature', simply because human nature does not exist. I wrote a post on this recently and will put a link to it as soon as I can find it.

The problem is that under certian conditions (and particularly in a system where workers are paid an hourly wage), laziness can be an advantage to those who practice it. Imagine for a moment that you are offered two almost identical jobs in a gumboot factory. In the first job, you are required to produce 100 gumboots an hour, for which you are paid $25. In the second, you are required to produce only 50 gumboots an hour, but you are still paid the same wage of $25. Which job will you take? Laziness isn't inherent in people, but it is advantageous. In biological terms, evolution selects for laziness.

In a socialist society, however, there would be no money. With no money there can be no wage labour. People would be driven to work directly for the benefit of producing goods that are useful.

[wielki_piec]

You're right, I wanted to say "built-into". :D

Is it possible that people will work only because of knowledge their job is useful? What would happen if someone is needed to produce something useful, but nobody wants to do it, because they don't treat it as useful. Is it possible that such situation would appear?

[Storming Heaven]

Is it possible that people will work only because of knowledge their job is useful?

To make useful things (or to provide useful services) is the only reason people work. In fact, people normally produce things that are useful to other people. In capitalist society, people do this because they are paid a wage with which they can purchase things that they do find personally useful. In a communist society, people would do this because it would support another person who produced things they needed. Farmers would grow food to support engineers who make tractors that farmers need.


What would happen if someone is needed to produce something useful, but nobody wants to do it, because they don't treat it as useful. Is it possible that such situation would appear?

Such a situation is impossible. Things are only useful because someone treats it as such.

[red team]

Originally posted by Storming Heaven+Dec 11 2005, 04:05 AM--> (Storming Heaven @ Dec 11 2005, 04:05 AM)
Nathe has hit the nail on the head here...more to eat is always a good thing, and in a society where sharing means surviving, more to share is good too! The problem in Poland seems to be that people found that by being lazy they could obtain the same reward for less effort... it paid (almost literally) to be lazy! In a communist society, there would be no bureaucracy distributing goods/payments...so the amount a person would have to eat and to share would be dependent on the work they did.
[/b]

And how do you suppose you're going to quantify that unless everybody is reduce to the level of farmers and hunters? Even if that horrible scenario were to happen how do we deal with the different strengths and limitations among people? The stronger segment of people being able to do more will eat more while the less able will eat less? I think we've advanced past that point since we can produce a surplus of agricultural products with a minimum of labor by using mechanization. By the way thats how class society formed by having a surplus of food so that a layer of the society could devote their time to other pursuits beside sustenance farming and hunting like becoming doctors, engineers, scientists and merchants for instance. Given that how do you quantify the wages of someone working in occupations thats hard to quantify like the above mention occupation of doctors, engineers, scientists and (maybe not merchants). The salary given in some occupations are simply not practical nor fair to be quantified according to a quota system. Also, should we let a person who doesn't want to work starve or go homeless? For a technologically backward agricultural society where the manual labor of every able bodied person involved in farming is significant in the corresponding output of available food, this line of reasoning is entirely valid and ethical, but what if you have a high technology society where only 2% of the people are needed to grow more than enough food for the entire population? Would your reasoning that those who work less eat less and those who work more eat more be fair and ethical then? I think that we're in between the stage in human technical progress where work is required and mandatory and where work is required, but not mandatory. And I also think that only when we have reached the stage in our technical progress in which work is required, but not mandatory for everyone that it will be possible to implement anything resembling Communism.


Storming [email protected] 11 2005, 04:05 AM

As is well known, Capitalists often complain that no-one in a completely voluntary society would clean toilets, etc. because of the lack of reward. The fact that the people who do these jobs are amongst the lowest paid in capitalist society should render this criticism void straight away, but I will continue. In a communist society, I think that people would want to do these jobs...simply because they are necessary. Witness that when they want to take a piss, most people use the proper facilities rather than urinating where they stand, despite the latter being the easier option!


:lol: Alright, I'll assume that you clean your own toilet at home, but how many toilets are you going to be cleaning as a full time janitor? How many days are you going to be working as a janitor. How many diarhea strewn toilets are you going to clean up before you feel less than enthusiastic about your job? What if you get the flu or something worse after cleaning up the diarhea of somebody who was sick. Feeling rewarded by your job now? :rolleyes:

Considering that being a janitor is somewhat mild compared to other more dangerously life and limb threatening jobs which are required if you are going to maintain a modern industrial society and that I have not listed here in the interest of brevity, how are you going to get people to take them up? Communist morality? :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, people are going to demand cold hard cash compensation for doing the job and they'll rather not do it or cheat or do a less than perfect job and get away with it if they could. The only option left if you absolutely insists on a fair and equitable society where everybody "volunteer" to work is if you get rid of all the unpleasant work by using technology to either fully automate it or reduce the necessary work to a minimal amount so that a trivial amount of time and people are needed.

http://www.dominic.lopez.net/cyber.html


Red Team

[Storming Heaven]

And how do you suppose you're going to quantify that unless everybody is reduce to the level of farmers and hunters? ... The stronger segment of people being able to do more will eat more while the less able will eat less? ... Also, should we let a person who doesn't want to work starve or go homeless? For a technologically backward agricultural society where the manual labor of every able bodied person involved in farming is significant in the corresponding output of available food, this line of reasoning is entirely valid and ethical, but what if you have a high technology society where only 2% of the people are needed to grow more than enough food for the entire population? Would your reasoning that those who work less eat less and those who work more eat more be fair and ethical then?

Please point out where I have said that 'those who work less eat less'. Never have I held such a position. An essential part of my point
(although I perhaps did not make it express enough) is that we should not attempt to quantify one another's contributions to a communist society. To do so would only lead to strife in a society that depends on the efforts of all to support one another. Money would be obselete (and almost all, if not all trade) in a communist society.


Also, should we let a person who doesn't want to work starve or go homeless?

Hell no! They have the same right to life as the rest of us. However, if they are able to, but will not contribute to a society that requires their contributing (in what ever way they are able), then it is only fair that such an action is taken as a wish not to participate in this society, and so not to receive the benefits that this society offers. But as I said, they have the same right to life as anyone else, and so a way in which they can support themselves outside of the commune should be decided upon.


And how do you suppose you're going to quantify that unless everybody is reduce to the level of farmers and hunters? ... By the way thats how class society formed by having a surplus of food so that a layer of the society could devote their time to other pursuits beside sustenance farming and hunting like becoming doctors, engineers, scientists and merchants for instance.

It seems to be you, not me who is suggesting that we return to prehistory.


Alright, I'll assume that you clean your own toilet at home, but how many toilets are you going to be cleaning as a full time janitor? How many days are you going to be working as a janitor. How many diarhea strewn toilets are you going to clean up before you feel less than enthusiastic about your job? What if you get the flu or something worse after cleaning up the diarhea of somebody who was sick. Feeling rewarded by your job now?

Considering that being a janitor is somewhat mild compared to other more dangerously life and limb threatening jobs which are required if you are going to maintain a modern industrial society and that I have not listed here in the interest of brevity, how are you going to get people to take them up? Communist morality?


I work in the meatroom of a petfood factory, processing offal, doing a job that is both dangerous and not always pleasent. Currently I work for a wage that allows me to pay my bills. However, in a communist society I would have no bills. Why then would I work? I would work to produce dogfood to feed the sheepdogs of the farmers, who produce the wool to make my clothes, and the food that goes on my table. If I wished for a prehistoric society, I would wish to produce everything myself and be self-sufficent.

[red team]

Also, should we let a person who doesn't want to work starve or go homeless?

Hell no! They have the same right to life as the rest of us. However, if they are able to, but will not contribute to a society that requires their contributing (in what ever way they are able), then it is only fair that such an action is taken as a wish not to participate in this society, and so not to receive the benefits that this society offers. But as I said, they have the same right to life as anyone else, and so a way in which they can support themselves outside of the commune should be decided upon.


Then you'll need to establish a law that states that everybody is obligated to work and a means to enforce that law, otherwise the only other option is to provide housing and food as a free public good like water (in most industrialized countries water is free).



And how do you suppose you're going to quantify that unless everybody is reduce to the level of farmers and hunters? ... By the way thats how class society formed by having a surplus of food so that a layer of the society could devote their time to other pursuits beside sustenance farming and hunting like becoming doctors, engineers, scientists and merchants for instance.

It seems to be you, not me who is suggesting that we return to prehistory.


I suggest nothing of the sort. I'm simply stating that fact that most people don't find their jobs motivating no matter what the underlying economic system is, be it Capitalism or Communism or whatever. And it won't be motivating enough for people to be convinced to sacrifice their efforts for the common good which ultimately is what Communism is all about. This has more to do with the material and I might add technical conditions that present human society finds itself in. Not convinced? Alright, everybody after the revolution gets to be factory worker and be bored out of his mind and get repetitive strain injuries doing a single repetitive motion while staring at a moving conveyor belt of semi-finished goods for eight hours a day. Oh Joy!!! :lol: . Instead of glorifying the life of the (manual) worker as classic Marxism does, what is necessary is the elimination of unskilled work with the application of advanced technology. Unskilled work is never inherently motivating in the first place, so its demise should not be missed. As hard as it is for you to accept, you seemed to have missed the fact that most people don't work because they see their jobs as something inherently lofty or important they work because they need their jobs for money in order to do and get things that are important to them.



Alright, I'll assume that you clean your own toilet at home, but how many toilets are you going to be cleaning as a full time janitor? How many days are you going to be working as a janitor. How many diarhea strewn toilets are you going to clean up before you feel less than enthusiastic about your job? What if you get the flu or something worse after cleaning up the diarhea of somebody who was sick. Feeling rewarded by your job now?

Considering that being a janitor is somewhat mild compared to other more dangerously life and limb threatening jobs which are required if you are going to maintain a modern industrial society and that I have not listed here in the interest of brevity, how are you going to get people to take them up? Communist morality?


I work in the meatroom of a petfood factory, processing offal, doing a job that is both dangerous and not always pleasent. Currently I work for a wage that allows me to pay my bills. However, in a communist society I would have no bills. Why then would I work? I would work to produce dogfood to feed the sheepdogs of the farmers, who produce the wool to make my clothes, and the food that goes on my table. If I wished for a prehistoric society, I would wish to produce everything myself and be self-sufficent.

Most people want to avoid things that is both dangerous and not always pleasent. In fact, I'll go even further, most people do everything they can possibly do to avoid things that is both dangerous and not always pleasent unless they see some immediate rewards for their efforts. You may not agree with this, but this is the actual way humans have evolved. Take primitive tribal hunting parties for example. Sure, not everybody is selfish and everybody cooperated in the hunt, but thats because they could "see" what their efforts could produce if the hunt was successful and their prey was taken down. Does the modern economy of a highly industrialized society have this property? Lets be honest, the first thought that comes to people's mind when they look at a consumer product is not the efforts of the many different people with different jobs that go into making the product. Sure the thought may cross your mind that "a lot of people went into making something like this" but thats purely on an abstract intellectual level which is far from the group solidarity felt in pursuing a common goal. The way the modern economy operates is just far too abstract and specialized for people to share in a sense of solidarity when performing their own specialized job function which also explains why people demand immediate tangible rewards for their work not empty feel-good phrases like: "oh! you've done something special".



And how do you suppose you're going to quantify that unless everybody is reduce to the level of farmers and hunters? ... The stronger segment of people being able to do more will eat more while the less able will eat less? ... Also, should we let a person who doesn't want to work starve or go homeless? For a technologically backward agricultural society where the manual labor of every able bodied person involved in farming is significant in the corresponding output of available food, this line of reasoning is entirely valid and ethical, but what if you have a high technology society where only 2% of the people are needed to grow more than enough food for the entire population? Would your reasoning that those who work less eat less and those who work more eat more be fair and ethical then?

Please point out where I have said that 'those who work less eat less'. Never have I held such a position. An essential part of my point
(although I perhaps did not make it express enough) is that we should not attempt to quantify one another's contributions to a communist society. To do so would only lead to strife in a society that depends on the efforts of all to support one another. Money would be obselete (and almost all, if not all trade) in a communist society.


This position is not even remotely possible under present material conditions. That's exactly my point. Under present conditions labor have to be quantified to be fair for everybody and for any economic system to function properly. For example, if I were to not quantify my work as to the amount of wealth it contributes to the economic system how is purchases on my part going to be judged as a fair exchange of wealth (the wealth I generated through my labor versus somebody elses contribution)? All sorts of problems is going to pop up one of which would be disputes in trade transactions like if I want a product or service which the other party think I did not do enough work for. Furthermore, how are you going to judge objectively what a fair exchange of labor should be given the fact that the economic system have developed to the point where most useful products and services are created by not just a small number of recognizable individuals, but the efforts of thousands of individuals grouped in large complex organizations all having interdependent trading relations with each other? Just look at your computer system. Do you think thats the effort of a few companies let alone a few individuals? The more serious problem is that if you're going to disregard labor value invested into a product or service when trading them with other products and services your economy is going to run down and collapse inevitably. There simply won't be enough surplus value to extract from your economy to support products and services which require a massive investment in labor like factories and universities if you don't do a serious and accurate accounting of the amount of effort required to be invested to produce each good or service. If the economy does collapse the only thing voluntary you could do is to "volunteer" to be drafted into a work gang. :lol:


Red Team

[Storming Heaven]

I'm simply stating that fact that most people don't find their jobs motivating no matter what the underlying economic system is, be it Capitalism or Communism or whatever.

You are looking at the problem from the wrong angle here. I think the problem is 'how can we motivate people to work?' rather than 'how can we make work motivating for people?'. I gather that Marx's first efforts were in philosophy, confronting this second (pseudo-)problem. He answered it by asserting that labour defined the human nature, and that capitalism stifled the human spirit by dividing labour into a process completed by seperate individuals. But Marxian metaphysics aside, I think that the real problem is the first one, and that work is only a means to an end rather than an end in itself.


And it won't be motivating enough for people to be convinced to sacrifice their efforts for the common good which ultimately is what Communism is all about ... As hard as it is for you to accept, you seemed to have missed the fact that most people don't work because they see their jobs as something inherently lofty or important they work because they need their jobs for money in order to do and get things that are important to them ... You may not agree with this, but this is the actual way humans have evolved.

You have missed my point entirely. My point was that people work for material benefits, although these material benefits are not necessarily immediately apparent. Material benefits are what motivate people to work, and it seems you recognize this much. And this interest in material benefits is evolutionary (in the biological sense of the term). But it is a mistake to conclude from here that these material benefits need to be immediate, or even quatifiable.

For years the case of vampire bats puzzled scientists. Vampire bats live in colonies of thousands of individuals, most of whom are unrelated, or are only distantly related. Each night they leave their roosts to feed. One any particular night, there will be some bats who have had less to eat than others, or who may have not succeded in finding anything at all. When they reach the roost, these bats will seek out bats who have eaten their full. Upon such an encounter the second bat (who has a full belly) will regurgitate the greater part of it's meal for the starving one. This relationship is not forced or aggressive. There is no dominence hierarchy determining which bats eat and which ones starve. No vampire bat ever goes hungry except of it's own volition.

This behavior posed questions to evolutionary theory. How could such behaviour be an advantage to the alturistic bats? It indeed is quite a puzzle until one realises that the behaviour is recipricoal. The bat that one day straves to feed another can expect to be fed, should he ever find himself unsucessful in obtaining a meal through the usual means.

In a communistic society, the engineer who produces tractors for farmers would do so (sic) because it allows the farmer to put food on his table. The farmer would produce food for the rest of society, because this society provides him with the things he needs but does not (and perhaps can not) produce - clothing, housing, water, television, you name it. No 'item value' trade is necessary, or even practical, for it should be clear that in such a society goods are the property of all, rather than the dominion of individuals.

If mere bats can operate peaceably in such a 'society' (if I may call it that), then surely we, as human beings can do as much.

[red team]

Originally posted by Storming Heaven+Jan 13 2006, 08:58 AM--> (Storming Heaven @ Jan 13 2006, 08:58 AM)

I'm simply stating that fact that most people don't find their jobs motivating no matter what the underlying economic system is, be it Capitalism or Communism or whatever.

You are looking at the problem from the wrong angle here. I think the problem is 'how can we motivate people to work?' rather than 'how can we make work motivating for people?'. I gather that Marx's first efforts were in philosophy, confronting this second (pseudo-)problem. He answered it by asserting that labour defined the human nature, and that capitalism stifled the human spirit by dividing labour into a process completed by seperate individuals. But Marxian metaphysics aside, I think that the real problem is the first one, and that work is only a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
[/b]

Brilliant idea, lets guilt-trip the workers into working. Instead of calling it the Protestant work ethic, we'll call it the Marxist work ethic! :lol:. Seriously though, I'm not too enthusiastic about modern production techniques such as the assembly line and time-motion studies myself, especially if I were to be forced into performing work in an assembly line fashion, but there was a reason why mass production techniques or Fordism won out over the traditional guild model of working in which every worker is skilled in all areas of the trade. Simply stated they were more materially efficient both in the creation of a product and in its maintenance. Think about why this is so. With everything that goes into making a product reduced to a series of single simple repetitive actions redundant work and mistakes due to the complexity of the product can be reduced to a minimum. Furthermore, replaceable parts can be standardized and made nearly identical which is important because every product that needs to be maintained can have a high reliability of having spare parts compatible with it. Just think about all the problems that would arise if parts to a product do not have a high degree of replaceability. A reduction in production efficiency would eventually ripple through the "real" economy of material costs. The more material and labor it takes to create or maintain a product the more it will cost for consumers to purchase them in order to recover the original cost of making or repairing the product in the first place. This is true no matter what economy you have, be it a free market Capitalist economy or a command driven Socialist economy. Do you think efficiency doesn't matter? Even according to Marx Communist society is only possible when super abundance of material is achieved, otherwise most people would be too concerned with survival and material comfort than to have the luxury of thinking about working toward a better world. The real debate should center around whether automation technology will be fully developed and implemented in a Capitalist system or whether technology like this would only come about from research done in a Socialist society after Capitalism has been overthrown. I think automation technology would only be fully developed in a Socialist society because there's no motive for it to be developed under Capitalism when you can just as well increase profit by making the workers work harder for less pay either here or in some other country without the need (and the risk) of investing in unproven technologies. Investment in anything under the Capitalist system including technology only takes place if there is a good chance of a better return in profit than if conditions were left as they were. As far as work being a means to an end rather than an end in itself, that exactly my point. People cannot fulfill all the requirements of life all by themselves. This is impossible. Everything that a person requires to live in comfort and decency is provided by the collective work of people in society including but not exclusive to the work done by the person himself. You do your own small part in your job in generating the collective wealth of society, but you depend on many other contributions from other people doing their jobs in society too. You can only really have work be "an end in itself" if you're a sustenance farmer or hunter, but who wants to do that? Human society have by far grown beyond having work be "an end in itself" in the primitivist, hunter, gatherer meaning of the term, but for work in modern industrial society to be "an end in itself" as you so clearly stated it must be rewarding and stimulating for those involved in the work, otherwise what I've said about people simply trading in the toil and unpleasantness of work for money in order to purchase necessities and what they feel is important to them will still remain true.


Storming [email protected] 13 2006, 08:58 AM


And it won't be motivating enough for people to be convinced to sacrifice their efforts for the common good which ultimately is what Communism is all about ... As hard as it is for you to accept, you seemed to have missed the fact that most people don't work because they see their jobs as something inherently lofty or important they work because they need their jobs for money in order to do and get things that are important to them ... You may not agree with this, but this is the actual way humans have evolved.

You have missed my point entirely. My point was that people work for material benefits, although these material benefits are not necessarily immediately apparent. Material benefits are what motivate people to work, and it seems you recognize this much. And this interest in material benefits is evolutionary (in the biological sense of the term). But it is a mistake to conclude from here that these material benefits need to be immediate, or even quatifiable.

For years the case of vampire bats puzzled scientists. Vampire bats live in colonies of thousands of individuals, most of whom are unrelated, or are only distantly related. Each night they leave their roosts to feed. One any particular night, there will be some bats who have had less to eat than others, or who may have not succeded in finding anything at all. When they reach the roost, these bats will seek out bats who have eaten their full. Upon such an encounter the second bat (who has a full belly) will regurgitate the greater part of it's meal for the starving one. This relationship is not forced or aggressive. There is no dominence hierarchy determining which bats eat and which ones starve. No vampire bat ever goes hungry except of it's own volition.

This behavior posed questions to evolutionary theory. How could such behaviour be an advantage to the alturistic bats? It indeed is quite a puzzle until one realises that the behaviour is recipricoal. The bat that one day straves to feed another can expect to be fed, should he ever find himself unsucessful in obtaining a meal through the usual means.

In a communistic society, the engineer who produces tractors for farmers would do so (sic) because it allows the farmer to put food on his table. The farmer would produce food for the rest of society, because this society provides him with the things he needs but does not (and perhaps can not) produce - clothing, housing, water, television, you name it. No 'item value' trade is necessary, or even practical, for it should be clear that in such a society goods are the property of all, rather than the dominion of individuals.

If mere bats can operate peaceably in such a 'society' (if I may call it that), then surely we, as human beings can do as much.

For one thing humans are not bats. We are much more complex and varied than that because our brains are bigger. It allows for more brain functions like cognitive thinking and emotions. Because of this we cannot compare humans to bats. This is a nonsensical comparison. For bats to exhibit such "altruistic" behavior their smaller brains are "hard-wired" with a biological "drive" to do this much like humans among other animals have a biological drive for sex. This is what we call "instinct". What the bats exhibit isn't even true altruism since altruism is based on the conscious intent for self-sacrifice. Bats as far as scientists could tell don't rationalize their actions by consciously thinking, "I'll do this for the good of the bat colony", simply because they are incapable of doing this due to their biological limitations. As far as I can tell there's no biological drive for humans to accept poor working conditions and assembly line work :lol:. From this simple fact alone, I think we as human beings are destined for bigger and better things than simple dumbass work of the kind that we still have in manual labor because we have the potential right inside our heads to rise above this.

http://www.dominic.lopez.net/cyber.html


Red Team

[Storming Heaven]

:blink: Please include proper paragraph breaks in your posts! They're difficult to read!!!


Even according to Marx ...

I am not a Marxist. Although I think Marx's contributions the history are great, I believe Marxism is severly flawed.


Seriously though, I'm not too enthusiastic about modern production techniques such as the assembly line and time-motion studies myself, especially if I were to be forced into performing work in an assembly line fashion, but there was a reason why mass production techniques or Fordism won out over the traditional guild model of working in which every worker is skilled in all areas of the trade. Simply stated they were more materially efficient both in the creation of a product and in its maintenance.

I'm in complete agreement here. Mass production techniques are not particularly pleasent but they are necessary, if we are to maintain the material standard of living that we currently have. Yesterday I spent six hours putting cans into boxes. My mate has spent most of the last three days watching cans wizz by as the lids are put on them, and feels he is going insane! Perhaps such work can be reduced (or perhaps even eliminated) by automation, but that is a question for another day.


For one thing humans are not bats ... For bats to exhibit such "altruistic" behavior their smaller brains are "hard-wired" with a biological "drive" to do this much like humans among other animals have a biological drive for sex. This is what we call "instinct".

As an Ecology and Zoology student I fully realise that humans are not bats, and that the bats are acting on instict. I offered the example simply to show that there are other motivations for work than 'instant' gratification or money, and that a society of reciprocal sharing (I think this is what is meant by the phrase 'gift economy') is possible.

[cormacobear]

heres a book on capitalistic lazyness, including suggestions on how to work less for the same pay just to get back at the Bourgoisie.

Weapons of the Weak
Author: James Scott
September 1987
ISBN: 0300036418 · Published by Yale University Press

in the oil-feild we call it "fucking the dog", standing around chatting and getting paid for it. Or a "Safety Meeting" if noones moving no, one'll get hurt. Pretty safe hunh :D

Take that capitalist productivity.

Only rude Americans call northern Natives Eskimos, they are Inuit. It means first people and it's what they call themselves.