Problems With Labor And Communism

[Vageli]

I am openly Communist in my school and thus I receive much criticism for my beliefs (no one I know shares my opinions). My problem is this: I can usually defend against their attacks, but not if they ask questions regarding labor. For example, what incentives are there in Communism to work at all if you will be provided for? Secondly, what incentive is there to excel or "go the extra mile" so to speak in your own line of work? It is questions like these that kill my argument. If anyone has some guidance, it would be much appreciated.

[Vageli]

Sorry for the double post, but I see now after reading more in the forums that what you earn is proportional to what you produce, eliminating both questions. But that brings up another question, what of the disabled that are deemed unable to work at all? How will their earnings be set?

Also, on a different subject, what of criminals? What becomes of them in a communist state? I know that there is no police force and that people basically just watch each others' backs, no? But if someone were deemed to be a "criminal" what would become of them (in terms of punishment, etc)?

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 04:31 PM
I am openly Communist in my school and thus I receive much criticism for my beliefs (no one I know shares my opinions). My problem is this: I can usually defend against their attacks, but not if they ask questions regarding labor. For example, what incentives are there in Communism to work at all if you will be provided for? Secondly, what incentive is there to excel or "go the extra mile" so to speak in your own line of work? It is questions like these that kill my argument. If anyone has some guidance, it would be much appreciated. As for the criminals, they will be tried to be integrated into soceity through community work so they can better themselves. There would still be prison, but it wouldnt be the hell holes that we have today. Plus, people will be infintely less impelled to commit crime since they will have all they need and will be happy with society and all.
by the way, I dont recommend being openly communist at school for it creates unnecessesary conflicts and hostilities. There is no material incentive in the capitalist sense. The point is that you have a job that suits your abilities and needs and therefore is something that you enjoy doing. Aside from capitalism where you are forced to work to suit your boss's needs and requirements. The incentive to excel in the future communist society is to contribute to society and the fact that your job is sels-fulfilling and and socially enriching in the sense that your doing something you like, your pay ( not in capital, but in needs) is proportional to your work unlike capitalism where you work more than you need to so as to create surplus value, or profit for the capitalist. Hope this helps comrade

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 12:31 AM
I am openly Communist in my school and thus I receive much criticism for my beliefs (no one I know shares my opinions). My problem is this: I can usually defend against their attacks, but not if they ask questions regarding labor. For example, what incentives are there in Communism to work at all if you will be provided for? Secondly, what incentive is there to excel or "go the extra mile" so to speak in your own line of work? It is questions like these that kill my argument. If anyone has some guidance, it would be much appreciated.
the problem with their questions, typical as they are, as well as most "criticisms" of communism, is that they ask questions based on their ignorance of the subject. They dont understand that Marx primarily laid out what capitalism is, and how it works, granted he wrote on communism, but its speculative. Its like if in feudal england, the serfs were like " hey, lets fight for capitalism, a system, that blah blah blah" The answer is that we cannot truly know what communism will be like, there are guidlines, and we can deduce conclusions based on history, and the theory of scientific socialism, but we cant tell them how exactly it will be like. But on those specific questions. Ask him that, for the majority of those living in capitalist nations, what are their incentives? there incentive to work, is that so they wont die, they must continually work for the capitalist, in order to continue living as a wage laborer. capitalisms contradictions cannot handle human needs, it can create its own needs, like for instance the "need" of money, but it cant solve the problems that it creates. We have the ability.err.. opportunity of learning from the past experiences, those of the various revolutions, we have seen how historical materialism functions, and we can think of ways a society will be, its not that hard, its just that people, (working people) are feed the capitalist ideology used to reinforce the system, which consequently tells them what communism is not. In communism, there would be healthcare, decent housing, free education, (in socialism, when there is money, to some degree), money going to prop this up, instead of going to war, all human needs are to be taken care of, determining how luxuries are handled, is a more theoretical, and argumentative, as comrades, have different opinions on that. sorry for rambling, hope that helps

[anomaly]

A few things here.


Originally posted by Vageli
I see now after reading more in the forums that what you earn is proportional to what you produce
Is it? What are 'earnings' in communist society? Let us not forget the slogan "from each according to his abilities; to each according to his need." It is not to each according to 'how much' or 'how hard' you work.

Essentially, communism will have what I call a 'gift economy'. That is, you'll take anything you need. Of course, these things which are 'taken' must also be produced in some manner. So if this is what you meant by 'earnings', then I agree with you.


what incentives are there in Communism to work at all if you will be provided for? Secondly, what incentive is there to excel or "go the extra mile" so to speak in your own line of work?
If we don't work at all, then we won't produce at all, and we will die. Anyway, given a situation of free individuals with no financial limitations, why won't they produce? After all, humans are naturally curious and eager to explore new ideas. We want to attain new knowledge. As I look more and more into communism, this criticism that 'nobody will work' seems sillier and sillier.


what of criminals
Each commune will decide. I'm guessing that people will be randomly selected for a jury, and then the accuser and the accused will debate. Stealing will likely disappear (why steal when you can have?). The more serious crimes (rape and murder), if witnessed, may result in a quick bullet to the head of the guilty one. Or perhaps exile if the people are feeling 'kind'.

For less serious crimes, the people would probably establish set 'punishments' when they set up their commune.


What becomes of them in a communist state?
There is no communist state. Communism is a stateless, classless, free society.

[wet blanket]

For example, what incentives are there in Communism to work at all if you will be provided for?
It's hard to say. However, whem left to their own devices, people are often productive. Granted, this would be pretty hard for you to explain to an argumentative kid in highschool in the context of our current society. Not only would society be radically different from our own, so would the situations which would require labor. In a communist society, there would ideally only be about 6-8 hours of 'work' necessary a week.

In short, most people are not going to sit around all day with their thumbs up their asses just because they can.



Secondly, what incentive is there to excel or "go the extra mile" so to speak in your own line of work?
The incentive would merely be one's own desire to do so.
This is a pretty vague question, although I can think of several situations in which I have done more than what was necessary of me without any real inscentive other than the fact that I wanted to get something done well.


Also, on a different subject, what of criminals? What becomes of them in a communist state? I know that there is no police force and that people basically just watch each others' backs, no? But if someone were deemed to be a "criminal" what would become of them (in terms of punishment, etc)?
Criminology is a very complex subject, however there is one thing that you can't overlook when beginning to discuss the matter: Most people in the prison system are poor. In a classless society, there really won't be a very significant amount of crime.
A bit of french graffiti put it very nicely:
"Man is neither Rousseaus noble savage nor the Churchs depraved sinner. He is violent when oppressed, gentle when free."

[Vageli]

For clarification, anomaly, I am familiar with that quote. It just slipped my mind at the time of writing :-P Also, when I refered to Communist "state" I called it a state because I didn't know what else to call it. Perhaps I should have said "In a Communist world"..

Also, wet_blanket, I know what you mean. People tend to be inquisitive by nature and thus wouldn't just sit around all day because they would grow bored.

I must also add that, during the same debates, the opposition constantly brings up China and the USSR and says "Communism looks good on paper but can nver work because people are innately greedy." I retort by saying that China and others are not examples of pure Communism and are in fact, failed implementations. I also respond with the fact that under Communism, things will be done for the good of the whole and the greedy will be punished. Am I wrong in these points?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Vageli
For clarification, anomaly, I am familiar with that quote. It just slipped my mind at the time of writing :-P
It's cool. I figured you knew it.


I called it a state because I didn't know what else to call it.
My apologies then. :P

I usually just call it communist 'society'.


Am I wrong in these points?
No.

But I don't think we can just say 'the greedy will be punished'. I think communism will be a time when one's greed and self interests are met through cooperation rather than competition.

Now, if someone decides to hire someone and re-institute wage-slavery, they will be serverely punished!

[wet blanket]

I must also add that, during the same debates, the opposition constantly brings up China and the USSR and says "Communism looks good on paper but can nver work because people are innately greedy." I retort by saying that China and others are not examples of pure Communism and are in fact, failed implementations. I also respond with the fact that under Communism, things will be done for the good of the whole and the greedy will be punished. Am I wrong in these points?
No, you're not really wrong, but you're oversimplifying it.

The "people are inherently greedy" remark is very common, but I don't think that's really true. In our society, it's easy to see why someone(especially a kid) would think that it's in our very nature as human beings to act the way we're 'supposed to' in capitalism(i.e. mass consumption) though if you were to tell that to a serious anthropologist, they'd probably laugh at you.
It's really quite the contrary, humans are actually very reasonable critters.

[Vageli]

Thanks to all for the responses. I think next time we debate I will surely win! I would also like to bring up that I agree with you guys in the respect that greed will dissapear. If everyone has access to something for free, people may start out hording these items, but as time grows on, I think people would be able to learn to share.

[Nicky Scarfo]

Personally I think the idea of a socialist society where there are no individual material incentives to excel at your work is pure utopianism. Otherwise people WILL shirk their duties. Humans are not inherently good or evil, but let's face it, if we can sit on our ass and get all the same shit someone who works hard does, a lot of us would do it, especially if we were stuck doing shit jobs (and until it is technologically possible to automate all of those jobs, shitty jobs will be around after "the revolution").

Also the "big-picture" kind of self interest just ain't gonna work for a lot of people, no matter how much you explain how necessary it is for everyone to do their part for society to function properly. You're always gonna have people motivated by what's immediately good for them. You will always have lazy people and you'll always have greedy people. The idea behind socialism is that we can restructure society in such a fashion that greed and immediate individual interest is not institutionalized, but you can't wipe it out entirely anymore than you could ever erase basic stupidity and dickheadedness. Even in the best functioning society, you'll always have dumbfucks and assholes (though hopefully fewer and their impact on others lessened).

My belief is that all the basics-- food, housing, education, communication, certain tech and R/D, energy, transportation, construction, steel, polymers, health care, etc.-- should be totally socialized and people's basic needs (food, shelter, health care) along with mass communication (free internet and phone) should be provided free of charge.

Non-essential enterprises (entertainment and entertainment-related technology, restaurants, etc.) should operate in an open but regulated market. All businesses, public and private (w/ the exception of family run shops of 5ees or less) should be collectively operated by worker committee (from the shop level all the way up to the international level) . The public enterprises should also have oversight by consumer committees (again from the local level all the way to global). In the case of private enterprises, they should be collectively owned by the workers in those businesses.

Worker and consumer committees should be popularly elected, subject to recall, and have strict term-limits, among other structural and procedural safeguards to prevent a new bureaucratic caste from emerging.

I think that workers should receive some extra remuneration which is directly tied to what they produce, so they may spend some currency on non-essential luxuries, gadgets and toys on the open market. Those unable to work would receive a fixed income tied to the median individual extra remuneration of all working society.

There would also be a cap on the amount of personal wealth an individual, family or organization could accumulate, and there would also be strict limits and regulation on new private investment. With the exception of expanding an existing worker co-op or investing internally in equipment upgrades or R/D, which would even then have to be approved by the consumer committees (though hopefully a streamlined process could be set up for the more perfunctory stuff-- hiring a couple more cooks or buying a new stove at a restaurant for example). Any purchase of existing worker co-ops by other worker co-ops would similarly be limited and strictly scrutinized.

So while not a TOTALLY egalitarian society (which I believe is impossible), it's pretty damn close, as the richest people would have only a little more than the poorest. And unlike capitalist society, how "poor" or "rich" you are (relatively speaking) would be entirely up to how hard and how well you chose to work. But if someone is motivated to work harder (or better) so she can get that plasma TV she wanted, then why not, just cause the guy down the street would rather relax and play basketball than acquire material possessions? Again, I think some individual material incentives will be necessary because some people will always be motivated by that sort of thing.

Such a system would be more fair than capitalism, would take into account some of the more negative aspects of human behavior, and provides the maximum amount of individual liberty for consumers and workers.

But in any case, the basics would be free to all and workplace democracy would be a fact of life for every worker in Nicky Scarfo's vision. Not a Communist utopia I grant you, but then again I'm not a Communist, or an Anarchist for that matter.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Nicky Scarfo
...but then again I'm not a Communist, or an Anarchist for that matter.

Agreed...you are neither of those things.

And your version of "socialism" is certainly a significant improvement on the Leninist despotisms of the last century...perhaps you should "start a party". :lol:

The "worm" in your "apple" is, of course, that the more money you have, the better you can live.

You've "built-in" a material incentive for the re-emergence of capitalism.

Others have been down this road before you...and all such proposals rely heavily on "legal barriers" to stop people from "becoming capitalists".

As you know, I have zero faith in "laws"...especially when those who make them can be bribed.

Which, under your system, they easily could be. :(

One reason communists insist on the abolition of money and the "market" is precisely to remove any material incentive to begin the accumulation of capital.

Maybe, as you say, that's "utopian"...we shall see.

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

[Axel1917]

The whole thing about the higher pay incentive does not makek sense. By that logic, everyone would go to college to become doctors and lawyers. They don't. Also, in communism, people will work less due to the higher productive forces, and there will be more, high quality goods produced. Their needs will be met, and they will not have to live from paycheck to paycheck like a lot of people do today. In communism, the workers will produce democratically, and therefore, they will have a say in how things run, while in capitalism, the tasks are left up to incompetent managers and such. If there is a bad manager in communism, he/she can be recalled at any time by a democratic vote.

[Vageli]

One reason communists insist on the abolition of money and the "market" is precisely to remove any material incentive to begin the accumulation of capital.


Exactly. The abolition of money is an absolute necessity when it comes to creating a Communist society because it removes the possibility of reinstating a Capitalistic society. Think of it this way. You were being a bad boy and your mom takes your favorite toy away from you. She places it high on a shelf, far out of your reach. But the temptation is there. Once your mom turns her back you could pull up a chair and get the toy. In this example the toy represents money(Capitalism), and your mom is society. As long as temptation exists there is a chance that something may happen which is exactly why money must be removed from the system before progressing further.

[вор в законе]

Communism is a stage in human society in which the total amount of productive forces have been maximized to such an extent that supply and demand is not significant enough to aggregate any possibility of making a profit.

Regarding the Human Nature.

Human nature defines itself to the economical basis on which it moves itself about. That is probably the reason that I do not feel the general urge to go out in the woods and catch my food, like the primitive humans were doing thousands of years ago. Hunters and farmers still exist, but do they share the same human nature as.. lets say 7000 years ago?

It is not ''human nature'' to work for a boss, to make a 200$ product and receive 100$.That is according to logic.. theft.

As for China and Soviet Union you can tell them that the failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was not the failure of Communism but the failure of totalitarianism.



One reason communists insist on the abolition of money and the "market" is precisely to remove any material incentive to begin the accumulation of capital.

Like I have repeatedly stated this is the key to everything.

We lack of a developed theory and mechanism of a ''communist way'' of production and distribution of the commodities that we produce.