Money and the incentive for working

[CCCPneubauten]

I was talking with a "US Nationalist" and I told him that there would be no money in communism (because he tried to pull the old "I don't like that people are all paid equally" thing.)

And he hit me with this...

"what you said about there being no money in a communist system, tell me, what would be the incentive for working hard, progressing, advancing?"

I don't have a clue...is there any really well read communists such as RedStar2000 9Or anyone!) that could give me some information and tools to answer this question... :(

Thanks comrades...

[Enragé]

the incentive is that your labour, what you do, your work, benefits yourself and the rest of society.

The need for money as a direct incentive to work is caused by the fact that your labour does not benefit you nor the rest of society, it benefits the ruling classes.

If you therefore would take money out of the system right now all workers would be like "why the fuck should i work, it benefits only my boss" while if you'd do so in communism it wouldnt matter cuz the money is not the incentive, its actually quite useless (cuz all get the same), but benefit to society as a whole, and thus yourself (since all get an equal share) is the incentive.

[ioncannon152]

"what you said about there being no money in a communist system, tell me, what would be the incentive for working hard, progressing, advancing?"

I think that depends on the work you are doing. For instance, if your work is cleaning, then the incentive would be for a cleaner environment.

As for progressing and advancing, the incentive would be a higher standard of living, for yourself and society, as well as better products for use and better quality of life.

Besides that, there's also interest as a form of motivation. For example, doctors and scientists do their work because they're interested in medicine and science, they work hard because they enjoy their work.

[Social Greenman]

I think this would help:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44216

Money is the exchange value used in society in obtaining commodities that have use value. Capitlist profits are based on money and money is used as wages paid to workers. Anarchist want money abolished while Leninist, I believe, want to continue to use money which is unfortunate in my opinion. I agree that money needs to be abolish but I believe that LTVs would give workers something to relate to until automation makes a "gift society" possible on a planetary scale. Under socilism we will certainly produce things with use value. That's what a commodity is, something with use value. But this production of use value under socialsm is different than production under capitailism. Under socialism we will produce components of a transportation system in order to be able to provde transportation. But under this present system a factory produces components of a transportation system and for what purpose? To profit the owners of the means of production. The fact that transportation results from this production is of secondary concern, if that. I won't dispute the fact that those commodities created have to have a certain quality to them otherwise no one would buy them. But those things created have a limited existence as they are either discarded or worn out. Whatever is created under socialism will have a higher quaility and would meet needs for generations. Socialism will end the "throw away" society.

[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 article 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.

[CCCPneubauten]

That seemed to shut him up...now here comes a quick question of my own...these communes you talk about...would they be simple and basic? Would there be a population quota or level?

Would we revert back to before the Industrial Revolution? (That seems like a good idea almost)

What about places with more recorces than others?

Would this be on a global scale only?

Thank you again...GREAT post JKP too, really sorted things out.

[Social Greenman]

Pardon me but I was not trashing Anachist theory of a "gift society." I am trying to convey a transition period to that sort of society. If a free gift society was implemented in the near future consumption would out do production. There would be food shortages and a lack of othe basic neccessity which would bring out thug predators to take, by force, from innocent people. How come no one thinks of that possibility? Do you think we are going to sing and dance to Tiny Tim's "Tip Toe Through The Tulips?"

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 06:21 PM
That seemed to shut him up...now here comes a quick question of my own...these communes you talk about...would they be simple and basic? Would there be a population quota or level?

Would we revert back to before the Industrial Revolution? (That seems like a good idea almost)

What about places with more recorces than others?

Would this be on a global scale only?

Thank you again...GREAT post JKP too, really sorted things out.
Reverting to "primitivism" is a reactionary idea in my opinion. Advanced technology is exactly what anarchism needs to become possible and practical.

Also, you may want to look through this:
http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1123037792&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[JKP]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 4 2006, 08:23 PM
Pardon me but I was not trashing Anachist theory of a "gift society." I am trying to convey a transition period to that sort of society. If a free gift society was implemented in the near future consumption would out do production. There would be food shortages and a lack of othe basic neccessity which would bring out thug predators to take, by force, from innocent people. How come no one thinks of that possibility? Do you think we are going to sing and dance to Tiny Tim's "Tip Toe Through The Tulips?"
Labour voucher.

[SmithSmith]

If there is no money, how would consumption be controlled?

[Social Greenman]

Time Labor Vouchers would be the incentive for work with out profits being made. Workers can then concentrate on creating new machinery that would make an "Anarchist Society" possible on a planetary scale.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 5 2006, 01:50 PM
Time Labor Vouchers would be the incentive for work with out profits being made. Workers can then concentrate on creating new machinery that would make an "Anarchist Society" possible on a planetary scale.
explain?

so if someone works an hour more he recieves more...while someone else who for some reason cannot work (that much)....say...someone with 6 children...would recieve less..though in fact (s)he might need more?

[monkeydust]

The idea is that with a new social order new motives, new incentives for action, arise.

In feudalism one didn't work to get one's next paycheck, people didn't advance up the social ladder by beefing up their bank accounts; in fact some of the nobility, the most prestigious class at the time, earned fairly meager amounts compared to rising merchants. What you "lived for", what drove you to action, was status, titles, prestige and your place on the ladder.

A change in the economic system marks a change in the system of social rewards - of what "counts". In capitalism being a duke or a count doens't really mean a great deal compared to having the most money, the best car, the best house.

The plan is that this change should continue into communism. With a change in the economic structure of society, a change that gives people more or less equal wealth, we won't so much see an abolition of incentives as we will see different incentives emerging.

What could these be? No one's completely sure, but a few god possibile incentives for work could be:
- Social prestige, being held in high esteem by one's peers, and, conversely, being looked down upon if one does not work.
- Satisfaction, actually enjoying being in a job which you enjoy and with which you can collectively use and benefit from the fruits of your productive labour.
- Altruism, being part of your community giving you visible motives to want to better that collectively.
- Long term self-interest. If you don't do work then other might not either, the end result being undesirable.

There's still problems and issues to be had with these matters, of course, But it gives you some idea of how incentive would be had in a society without wages or money.

[CCCPneubauten]

I guess I'm just not seeing how this would all play out...and how is returning to our roots reactionary?

What about populations of millions? What about places with more resorces?!?!

[1984]

The idea of a moneyless society is shocking to some perhaps because they are unaware of how different life itself is in a commune.

"Primitive" societies, like indian tribes in South America and Africe, are a good example of a moneyless society - everyone works for the benefit of all, have access to the land they plow or extracts natural goods, and the individual receives according to their personal need.

The most basic idea I personally have of what a Communist society will be like is one based upon the human society before the creation of the State, yet fit in a modern, industrial/technologic background.

I suppose "population of millions" should be unstable in a commune, so the people would have to spread themselves across the land in order to maintain a reasonable populational density for this system to work. Places with more resources than other would have the obligation of sending their superavit to other communes that are lacking goods.

Of course that would require a strong sense of social duty for everybody, so that individual power itself doesn't ressurect.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 05:04 PM
The idea of a moneyless society is shocking to some perhaps because they are unaware of how different life itself is in a commune.

"Primitive" societies, like indian tribes in South America and Africe, are a good example of a moneyless society - everyone works for the benefit of all, have access to the land they plow or extracts natural goods, and the individual receives according to their personal need.

The most basic idea I personally have of what a Communist society will be like is one based upon the human society before the creation of the State, yet fit in a modern, industrial/technologic background.

I suppose "population of millions" should be unstable in a commune, so the people would have to spread themselves across the land in order to maintain a reasonable populational density for this system to work. Places with more resources than other would have the obligation of sending their superavit to other communes that are lacking goods.

Of course that would require a strong sense of social duty for everybody, so that individual power itself doesn't ressurect.
http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098908960&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[CCCPneubauten]

This all seems a bit...far fetched for me...maybe I should stick with socialism.

[ioncannon152]

I have a question concerning labor-time vouchers.

Who issues these vouchers?

[Revolutionary_Anti-Fascist]

I only read one or two posts in here so apoligies if this has been mentioned.

The incentive is actually very obvious, in a communist society people exchange their talents produce for the right to otheres produce, that is to say the breadmaker makes bread so he is entitled to the services of the doctor who comes to work each day so that he is entitled to the bread te breadmaker makes etc etc.

That's of course a very basic overview, but in my mind someone who refuses to work will effectively be isolated by the other members.

[Social Greenman]

Things would be very complicated after the revolution. Even though the capitalist has left building, his one time means of production was to make as much profit as possible and what the use value of what was produced was of secondary concern. The concept of changing over to a different economic system would be essential because:

1. The wealth of the capitalist is eliminated. The use of banks would also be eliminated. The concept of land ownership would disappear. LTVs would be reconized as an exchange medium, like money, by ordinary folk and to reduce the confusion when societies change from capitalism to socialism. Hopefully reactionary elements would be reduced as well because the funding for their activity would no longer exist. Organized crime syndicates would have no wealth since there will be no longer a black market to buy and sell from. Fascist can no longer receive monies from their members to keep their orgs going. Nor would their be tithing of monies to churches. LTVs would be a very good tool when the workers control the means of production. A temporary tool until technology makes it possible for a free gift society.

2. Labor Time Vouchers (LTVS) give the worker their full labor amount that he or she worked for since it is labor that creates social wealth. For each hour of work about twenty minutes of LTVs is created (out of the blue) to take care of those who cannot work due to mental, emotional or physical impairment. From what I understand, each twenty minutes of LTVs also pays (for lack of a better term) for hospitals workers doctor offices, teachers, (police?) and those in social services. The LTVs additions/reductions are sent to each hospital, doctors office, education center and social services from each local work place. Social services would handle the distribution of LTVs to those who cannot work. Adjustments in LTVs are made to meet society's needs.

3. LTVs is a medium of exchange for other commodities in the Social Store. The LTV is eliminated after the transaction (which means no one gets rich). Whatever the worker/impaired person does with commodities obtained from the social store is up to them. It would be wonderful if exchanges began between people because what is produced will have a higher and more useful value than the throw away junk we have now. Perhaps LTVs would echo the beginings of a gift society.

4. Some workers will get more LTVs per hour due to stress, physical labor and danger involved. It must be kept in mind that people are different and their functions in society would be different and LTVs would reflect those differences.
See this link:


5. LTVs would help transform society as new technologies are created and implemented into society thus more automation in production that requires less people to oversee. [note: capitalist do this in a sense but they still need people to buy their products to make profits. They employ a good number of people and work their asses off in the mean time.] Technicological, medical and enviromental inventors should receive some sort of award and or/reward for their contributions at the work place.

6. Since clerical workers in the here and now obtain information when workers who enter information into their nearby computer terminal in the work place: How long it took to set up the machine. How many componets were made in an hour. What down time there was for repair or maintenence. These clerical workers also take orders (what products are needed) from other regions and are sent to the shop floor to be produced while those same items that were already produced are sent out of the warehouse to those regions who requested the orders in the first place. Clerical workers take care of payroll--not the capitalist class--so to pay the workers for their week of work. It will be the clerical workers in each place of employment who issue out LTVs and make those social LTV additions/deduction which are transferd to those other agencies (via computers) as mentioned in 2. [note: these workers are paid LTVs because they are part of the production process and share in some of the value what is produced though their LTVs is a smaller portion than that of the operator and maintenence person.]

7. the use of LTVs would make it possible for everyone to work. There would no longer be an eight hour work day nor overtime. Everyone who is able can work a few hours a day. Since commodities are not produced for profit their price only reflects the labor time involved. Everything becomes more affordable. People can accumulate LTVs and retire with them. [note: health care and education are free and no taxation whatsoever.]

8. The software for the LTVs can be distributed internationally in every language ony if it is agreed upon by everyone everywhere as a means of exchange at the social stores until the time when there are no longer needed on a planetary scale.

9. It will be determined by all nationally and internationally what unit values LTVs have in each production process and non-production process. Of course there has to be some sort of check and balance system perhaps even policing of the system. I never claimed this system would be perfect.

I hope I covered all the questions here concerning who issues LTVs and why there will be those who receive more than others. All societies in the world are socially and cultually different from each other. Therefore a universal economic system is needed which would eliminate the capitalist wealth internationally and give workers something in common to work with when it come to commodity exchanges. However, I don&#39;t have a clue how a "hippie commune" would operate in a socialist society. :P <_<

[Social Greenman]

Revolutionary Anti Fascist wrote:


The incentive is actually very obvious, in a communist society people exchange their talents produce for the right to otheres produce, that is to say the breadmaker makes bread so he is entitled to the services of the doctor who comes to work each day so that he is entitled to the bread te breadmaker makes etc etc.

It would take a number of generations to develope the cultural mindset you described. Free access would be normal to obtain medical and other commodities without the worry of what is exchanged. People will be more human and more caring I hope. There will not exist the "What&#39;s in it for me" attitude.


That&#39;s of course a very basic overview, but in my mind someone who refuses to work will effectively be isolated by the other members.

Perhaps it more of a psychological condition than just being lazy. Even Beetle Bailey could find something he likes to do other than sleep.

[Social Greenman]

I forgot to mention that TLVs do not need any government to over see it. Workers will take care of the details.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Social [email protected] 6 2006, 12:31 PM
Revolutionary Anti Fascist wrote:


The incentive is actually very obvious, in a communist society people exchange their talents produce for the right to otheres produce, that is to say the breadmaker makes bread so he is entitled to the services of the doctor who comes to work each day so that he is entitled to the bread te breadmaker makes etc etc.

It would take a number of generations to develope the cultural mindset you described. Free access would be normal to obtain medical and other commodities without the worry of what is exchanged. People will be more human and more caring I hope. There will not exist the "What&#39;s in it for me" attitude.


That&#39;s of course a very basic overview, but in my mind someone who refuses to work will effectively be isolated by the other members.

Perhaps it more of a psychological condition than just being lazy. Even Beetle Bailey could find something he likes to do other than sleep.
People naturally will have the "what&#39;s in it for me" attitude that you describe. This attitude is the very reason for revolution in the first place. We cannot expect the proletariat to revolt for an altruistic reason, can we? No, it will be only for their own benefit that they will revolt.

In communist society, do not expect egotistical reasons to be wiped away by the inherent &#39;goodness&#39; of communism. People will still work mainly for themselves. But communism links society and the individual, so that each works for the other, but also for itself at the same time.

I must point out the extreme similarities of why people work under capitalism and why people will work under communism. Today, we work for money, which we can use to purchase goods neccesary for our survival. This aspect, however, forces us into the role of a slave, as we are slaves to those who give us our money, our sustenance.

In communism, this element of exploitation-that is-money itself will be eliminated. If we take this out of the above equation, people in communism will not work for some amount of currency which can be used to survive, but survival itself. People will work simply to survive. They will not, however, be told how long or how hard they need to work by some master, but rather will decide these things themselves, and with their commune. In this way communism is the most democratic system ever devised by man.

So, it is very simple. If no one in a commune works, they all die. And so they will work, if nothing else for survival (although I am guessing people will work for more than just survival, perhaps for aesthetic reasons or for self realization). If one person, even, refuses to work, production will be slowed, if just by a little bit. Every person is a worker, and thus an important link in the chain of society.

It seems to be that this question of &#39;incentive&#39; is the most idiotic objection ever cited by any capitalist. Their minds are filled with money, and nothing else. To them, if there weren&#39;t any money, the world itself would cease to exist.

[Social Greenman]

Anomoly wrote:


People naturally will have the "what&#39;s in it for me" attitude that you describe. This attitude is the very reason for revolution in the first place. We cannot expect the proletariat to revolt for an altruistic reason, can we? No, it will be only for their own benefit that they will revolt.

Actually it would be..."What in it for us," a group mentality of sorts. Revolution will not be for altruistic reasons, or in hopes of a gift society, nor for that of a love ethic. Revolution will have a concrete plan of action that workers will see as an alternative to capitalism whatever it may be. <_<


In communist society, do not expect egotistical reasons to be wiped away by the inherent &#39;goodness&#39; of communism. People will still work mainly for themselves. But communism links society and the individual, so that each works for the other, but also for itself at the same time.

Perhaps, perhaps not since no communist society ever existed. Whose to say that mankind would even get remotely close. Maybe we will end up with barbarism instead.


I must point out the extreme similarities of why people work under capitalism and why people will work under communism. Today, we work for money, which we can use to purchase goods neccesary for our survival. This aspect, however, forces us into the role of a slave, as we are slaves to those who give us our money, our sustenance.

In communism, this element of exploitation-that is-money itself will be eliminated. If we take this out of the above equation, people in communism will not work for some amount of currency which can be used to survive, but survival itself. People will work simply to survive. They will not, however, be told how long or how hard they need to work by some master, but rather will decide these things themselves, and with their commune. In this way communism is the most democratic system ever devised by man.

So, it is very simple. If no one in a commune works, they all die. And so they will work, if nothing else for survival (although I am guessing people will work for more than just survival, perhaps for aesthetic reasons or for self realization). If one person, even, refuses to work, production will be slowed, if just by a little bit. Every person is a worker, and thus an important link in the chain of society.

And what I wrote was also about the elimination of money and the socialization of the means of production. Remove the profit and exploitation aspect then people may actually become human. I really don&#39;t like calling Time Labor Vouchers a "currency." It is an exchange medium none-the-less. The whole concept is a economic plan of action that workers can identify with in the here and now. Since exploitation and profits are eliminated workers can work shorters hours which means more people can work for vouchers. Whatever is obtained at the social store will not have an inflated price because profits will no longer exist. The voucher system will cause a better living standard than what is expereinced today. As time goes by work will be created that would be self actualizing and fullfilling. Automation, in the long run, will lead to a gift economy.


It seems to be that this question of &#39;incentive&#39; is the most idiotic objection ever cited by any capitalist. Their minds are filled with money, and nothing else. To them, if there weren&#39;t any money, the world itself would cease to exist.

Money is an incentive since people either works or starve. Workers also think in economic terms of money in everything they do. This is the conditioning learned from childhood. What needs to be offered to workers now is something that they can see in their mind&#39;s eye as being more valuable than their meger paycheck. :D

[Zingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:39 PM
If there is no money, how would consumption be controlled?
It wouldn&#39;t

[Social Greenman]

Originally posted by Zingu+Jan 14 2006, 02:27 AM--> (Zingu &#064; Jan 14 2006, 02:27 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 12:39 PM
If there is no money, how would consumption be controlled?
It wouldn&#39;t[/b]
The TLV concept would address the production and consumption question. I and others feel that after the means of production are socialized that there is a very good chance that consumtion would out pace production. TLVs would bring the balance in place of money. Money is the exchange medium to what is bought, sold and measures wealth. On the other hand, TLVs is based on the social wealth of labor. TLVs get wiped out when buying products of consumption be it food, clothes, hardware, condoms, dildos, :lol: furniture, carpets, transportation, etc. :P

[Enragé]

you could also look at it like this;

why buy a thousand chairs if you only need one and the 999 chairs dont have any value which can be translated into other commodities *through money*

[Janus]

Since work will be voluntary in a communist society, people will naturally lean towards work that they like and enjoy. Also, one of the reasons why some people enjoy their work is because of the prestige involved. Simply put, some jobs are more important and beneficial than others. Therefore, your reward will be the positive impact that you have on society and the prestige that goes along with it.

[pharmer]

Money is an incentive since people either works or starve. Workers also think in economic terms of money in everything they do. This is the conditioning learned from childhood. What needs to be offered to workers now is something that they can see in their mind&#39;s eye as being more valuable than their meger paycheck.

I agree. The evolution of our species up to this point (think of Darwinian selection) is based on our pre-disposition to survival. Human psychology, and its effects, are designed specifically to allow each induvidual to ensure his/her survival. When discussing the incentive for work, the incentive is life. The choice to work or not to work in a socialist society is essentially the choice of whether to live or not to live. People will choose life. Work would become the means to sustain your personal existence and the existence of those dependent on you.

The way this capitalist society is constructed we are expected, even forced, to consuem and the produce far beyond what we actually need. This is a society which is under the myth that the earth contains infinite resources and we can continue to grow and consume until the end of time. Some people will be sadly disapointed when they finally realize that this isn&#39;t the case.

A socialist society would force human psychology to evolve from survival on a daily basis to survival over time. Because we are limited by resource, by space and by time on earth, a society which is based on infite growth and infinite consumption/production is inherently unsusatainable. Each person must become responsible for what he consumes and contributes from the earth/society/commune etc... What an induvidual takes from the earth, (s)he must return to the earth. What product/service (s)he receives from his neighbour his must return a product/service. A balance is thus created between between consumption and production.

In today&#39;s world consumption forces production, this is not sustainable.

[Social Greenman]

Pharmer wrote:


In today&#39;s world consumption forces production, this is not sustainable.

That is a great summary. :) When construction towards a socialist society begin there will have to be new behaviors learned over the long term. The big advantage at the beginning is that no one would be told that they have to consume and to have the most toys when they die. Persuit of profits will not exist. But will people have to survive in a socialist society? I think there will be more challenges for people to do like solving problems of oil shortages. I am sure capitalism would make oil more scarce due to their persuit of profit. However, oil will be around in areas hard to get too.

After capitalism and the socialist reconstruction of society has begun, the oil shortage problem could somewhat be curtailed when people will no longer have to travel long distances to Wal-Marts or Malls when local warehouses and refrigerated warehouses can be constructed in local areas along with social stores. Those products are exchanged with TLVs. Instead of people driving their cars over long distances to find what suits their fancy, semi trucks can bring those items to the warehouses which are distributed to the local social stores. People will take a bus to work rather than drive. There will still be cars, which will be very fuel efficient, in the socialist society. But the need to run here and there will cease since people just may find fullfilment in their own backyard. People may grow and can their own food because they will have time to do those things because there will be shorter hours of work due to more people being able to work around the clock. A true sense of community will emerge as people find the liberty to problem solve.

Education and medical services could be more localized through the internet. Doctors could perform surgery being instructed by a specialist surgeon by a webcam in 3-D. professors can teach college age kids in their homes by television/internet access. Ther are many positive things that could be achieved when reconstruction of society begins when capitalism ends.

[Body Count]

I&#39;m not sure about these TLV&#39;s, I think all forms of any capital or "savings" should be abolished.

I think that consumption will be controlled because people are gonna know what you have/are taking. I mean, if you&#39;re getting a whole damn refridgerator worth of food everyday you will be looked down upon heavily and may even get punished by the community.

I think that we are all looking at this from a CURRENT mindset...by the time communism roles around, a person eating 3000 calories a day will be unheard of, in fact, the daily calorie intake may be half that.

As far as chairs and other such items....there may be a shortage for some time, but eventually, once you have one couch you don&#39;t need 3 more...a communist society wouldn&#39;t be like what we have today where we throw things away after two years or after they break.

[Social Greenman]

Comrade Qiu wrote:


Since work will be voluntary in a communist society, people will naturally lean towards work that they like and enjoy. Also, one of the reasons why some people enjoy their work is because of the prestige involved. Simply put, some jobs are more important and beneficial than others. Therefore, your reward will be the positive impact that you have on society and the prestige that goes along with it.

Societies as a whole are far from voluntary work to meet social needs of food, clothes and housing because the social behavoir does not yet exist. I wonder if it ever will.

Body Count wrote:


I&#39;m not sure about these TLV&#39;s, I think all forms of any capital or "savings" should be abolished.

Can&#39;t be done "right off the bat." No, rather, the TLV is a Labor Time savings account which a worker accumulates and lives off of being an exchange medium for other commodities. Workers would not have to work long hours so that many other workers can work and build their accounts. It will take generations before the social behavior of the "gift economy" can exist. This social behavior cannot be fostered under capitalism with the masses because the capitalist will lead them back to their system. Has not history prove this? The new economic system of TLVs would burn the bridge back to capitalism.


I think that consumption will be controlled because people are gonna know what you have/are taking. I mean, if you&#39;re getting a whole damn refridgerator worth of food everyday you will be looked down upon heavily and may even get punished by the community.

I think that we are all looking at this from a CURRENT mindset...by the time communism roles around, a person eating 3000 calories a day will be unheard of, in fact, the daily calorie intake may be half that.

As far as chairs and other such items....there may be a shortage for some time, but eventually, once you have one couch you don&#39;t need 3 more...a communist society wouldn&#39;t be like what we have today where we throw things away after two years or after they break.

You are speaking of a far distant society that does not exist whatsoever in today&#39;s society. So, we have no choice but to look at things from the current mindset. If workers actually get fed up with the present system they are going to wonder what the next step will be. That&#39;s why I write of TLVs.