Technical difficulties in achieving socialism

[red team]

Technical Difficulties in Achieving a Liberating Type of Communism
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

At this moment in time I think the technological and social condition of present human society does not allow a liberating type of communism to be achieved. At most that could be hoped for is a type of supervised rationing system in which work and consumer products are parcelled out. If that is the case then this "Socialist" or "Communist" (you can call it what you want) system should it ever be achieved will not last as it will lead to a serious case of unmotivated workers. This is the actual case in the former Eastern block countries including the U.S.S.R. when it existed. Workers seriously lacked the motivation to do their jobs. And when it came time that the rulers of the system started to dismantle the centrally planned economy (the supervised rationing system as mentioned before) in favour of an openly Capitalist economy, there was no significant portion of the working population motivated enough to stop them. Why is that the case? Well let me elaborate.

First of all as mentioned before when the revolution broke out the technical level of present human society (this includes North America by the way) only allowed the type of system that was possible. A rationed agricultural/industrial work system in which the best that the average worker could hope for was a regimented factory "life" in which work and pretty much everything else in life was a repetitive and endless routine. For certain in was better than most workers could hope for in much of the rest of the world with almost free housing, free medical care, free education and a guaranteed job, but knowing human beings as much as I do they always hope for something more to a routinized existence in which endless, repetitive and alienating work is a duty and precondition to receiving the necessities of life. The majority of jobs necessary for the maintenance and functioning of present industrial society as it exists today are neither uplifting nor goal oriented. The necessary work are neither stimulating nor does it give any sense of accomplishment to the worker who finishes the work because it never really is finished in any sort of meaningful goal oriented sense. If you "finish" your job today you start again tomorrow from square one. In that sort of situation its not very hard to predict what kind of culture and attitude most workers would develop over time in regards to their jobs given that they were not coerced into desperation and put into survival-mode as is the case in Capitalist countries. The workers did as little as they could get away with or to put another way they did as much as necessary to not get punished by management, but no more. And in most cases since the job and the paycheck is guaranteed anyway and management also gets a guaranteed paycheck from the central government you could get away with not doing any work at all or doing minimal work for an entire day. As I said before there was a serious lack of motivation to the type of routinized existence that industrial technology as it existed then and as it exists now limited the system in its capacity to allow. Most people were stuck with these types of jobs performing mind-numbing, repetitive work since it was impossible for everybody to have satisfying professional or semi-professional type jobs.

Secondly, even if the required technical level has been reached which allows for most repetitive work to be automated, most workers even today are not educated to the level of being competent technicians which are required to maintain the complex automated machinery to eliminate repetitive alienating work in the first place. Just as an example, a significant portion of the high school graduates in the U.S. requires remedial courses in simple arithmetic when put into a job that requires basic math skills.

So at present is it possible to develop a liberating type of social system as replacement to Capitalism. The answer is no, but if the situation becomes unbearable for the impoverished masses a type of supervised rationing system is the best that could be hoped for at our present social and technical level. Until we fully develop the technology to eliminate repetitive, but necessary work and have a highly trained technician workforce to maintain such technology a liberating type of socialism/communism for all involved will remain just a dream.


red team

[redstar2000]

I moved this thread to this forum because I think it does have some interesting theoretical implications.


Originally posted by red team
At this moment in time I think the technological and social condition of present human society does not allow a liberating type of communism to be achieved. At most that could be hoped for is a type of supervised rationing system in which work and consumer products are parceled out. If that is the case then this "Socialist" or "Communist" (you can call it what you want) system should it ever be achieved will not last as it will lead to a serious case of unmotivated workers.

To begin with, you can't "call it what you want".

The common usage of the word "socialism" has a specific meaning: a society in which the old capitalist class has been entirely dispossessed of its wealth and power...but which otherwise resembles quite closely what we have now.

Communism means a society entirely different from what we have now...most notably the complete absence of a marketplace, money, a state, wage-labor, etc.

So you have to make a distinction between the two forms of "post-capitalist" society.

As it happens, most people probably think that socialism would be the "practical alternative"...because it's so much like what we already have and "know" works.

To be sure, workers in a socialist economy do not have the material incentives to work as hard as they do in capitalist countries...but the work still gets done. The USSR did not collapse because everyone was laying on the grass watching the pretty clouds.

In a communist society, there are no "workers" in the sense that they exist in class society.

There are just people...who "work" at what they enjoy. The only "material incentive" involved is enlightened self-interest.


The majority of jobs necessary for the maintenance and functioning of present industrial society as it exists today are neither uplifting nor goal oriented. The necessary work are neither stimulating nor does it give any sense of accomplishment to the worker who finishes the work because it never really is finished in any sort of meaningful goal oriented sense.

Could they be altered in such a way as to change that? The managers of a capitalist or a socialist economy have no reason to do that.

But people in a communist society would have a very strong motivation to do that...to look for ways to make their work more interesting and satisfying.

And there'd be no one who could stop them from doing that.


Most people were stuck with these types of jobs performing mind-numbing, repetitive work since it was impossible for everybody to have satisfying professional or semi-professional type jobs.

Again, is that a "law of nature" or a product of a backward technology?

What actually seems to be happening in late capitalism is that those "satisfying" jobs are being reduced to "mind-numbing routines".

While at the same time, the existing "mind-numbing" jobs are being "up-graded"...they require more "proletarian initiative" to perform than used to be the case.


Until we fully develop the technology to eliminate repetitive, but necessary work and have a highly trained technician workforce to maintain such technology a liberating type of socialism/communism for all involved will remain just a dream.

If what you are saying is that communism requires a more advanced technology than presently exists, you are probably right.

But if your argument is that "therefore" we should "settle" for socialism because that's "the best we can hope for", then I think you are wrong.

It is better to try for communism and fail than it is to try for socialism and succeed. Socialism might involve some improvements in our lives -- not least of which would be the reduction in the intensity of labor that you noted.

But "things in general" would still be more or less like they are now...shitty!

Revolutions are difficult and dangerous; I don't think they're "worth the bother" unless we really get a whole new world out of them.

Not to mention the fact that socialisms show a marked tendency to devolve back to capitalism. The people who "led the revolution" just turn themselves into a new capitalist class and we end up back in the shit again.

That's not possible in a communist society.

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