The one question I don't have a good answer for...

[Comrade Kurtz]

By far the hardest question for me as a socialist to answer up to, one that isn't addressed in the stickey thread at the top of this forum is the following...


If people have no way to attain more or become more powerful, what will continue to make them work harder?

In some ways I do have an answer to this question. However it's hardly logical to say that once money is no longer equated with success people will work just because they want to. As a socialist, I don't believe in the complete abolition of money. Rather, I believe focus should be shifted away from the dollar. But this question still stumps me. What, if not money, will be the driving force for people to work in a socialist society?

And please, spare me the altruistic shite about how people will work because they are "essential". It's an argument I have unfortunately resorted to using but is ultimately very unsatisfying.

EDIT: One other request: Because I don't believe that the communist idea of abolishing money and harnessing technology to do work instead of people, can you try and keep things a little less... radical?

In fact, look at the question like this. We've just established a democratic socialist system in 21st-century America. How do we get people to keep working?

[Forward Union]

If people have no way to attain more or become more powerful, what will continue to make them work harder?

Basically (and I continue at the risk of oversimplifying) people would work, for a few reasons. One, society needs jobs done. If they don't get done, people may die, things will crumble, etc. It would be in the societies own, selfish self-interest, to maintain itself. That means, farming, building, painting, manufacturing, all the normal jobs that get done today.

Some people will want to do these jobs, out of genuine interest, sense of urgency, duty etc. Other jobs could be collectively shared, or rotated. The process naturally, would be ultra-democratic. Secondly, If people don't contribute to society, they don't receive "from each according his faculty to each according his need". So it'd also be in your self interest to work, really. But you wouldn't have to have a profession, you can do different jobs as you so desire, within reason.

Anyway, this is a theoretical issue, moved

[Comrade Kurtz]

Am I to take from your statement that if you don't work, you don't get your needs met?

[Comrade Kurtz]

I've done some quick reading on the matter. Here is my own conclusion, although I am still very interested in seeing what you all have to say (thanks for the quick reply, Love Underground): In a democratic socialist society, people are not going to be 100% equal. It's not a realistic expectation because certain jobs are going to require more resources.

However, what needs to be done is to get the inequality to a point where it is hardly noticable and from there maintain a balance via the government and a welfare state. This way, classes are virtually eliminated but certain jobs still do bring with them benefits. Once salaries are regulated by the government also (welfare), then monetary concerns will begin to gradually deminish.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2006, 09:33 PM
I've done some quick reading on the matter. Here is my own conclusion, although I am still very interested in seeing what you all have to say (thanks for the quick reply, Love Underground): In a democratic socialist society, people are not going to be 100% equal. It's not a realistic expectation because certain jobs are going to require more resources.

However, what needs to be done is to get the inequality to a point where it is hardly noticable and from there maintain a balance via the government and a welfare state. This way, classes are virtually eliminated but certain jobs still do bring with them benefits. Once salaries are regulated by the government also (welfare), then monetary concerns will begin to gradually deminish.
You're assuming labor will always be necessary for production. In a technologically advanced society, this is not the case. In our current society, IMO, meritocracy is essentially classlessness. Inequality is acceptable provided that each person's economic status is determined by their labor and individual skills rather than the accumulation of capital. In other words, "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability," does not necessarily require either total elimination of government or property.

[Comrade Kurtz]

That's an interesting and fresh approach to what others are often saying. While I think technocracy is still too ambiguous, I completely agree with your second point.

[apathy maybe]

If people have no way to attain more or become more powerful, what will continue to make them work harder?Who gives shit? So long as people work enough, it doesn't matter if they work harder.

We don't want there to be differentials in wealth and power. Socialism is about reducing these differential, giving more power to the majority (the workers) and taking it from the current ruling class.

Besides which, all those people currently doing useless jobs (many clerical type jobs, retail etc.), will be able to do useful jobs, those there will be less work to go around (which is a good thing!), meaning that people don't have to work as hard.

Fuck Work!

[Comrade Kurtz]

What about innovation which will bring about this "technological revolution" you communists have such a hard-on for? If people only do the bare minimum, you're all SOL.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2006, 10:45 PM
That's an interesting and fresh approach to what others are often saying. While I think technocracy is still too ambiguous, I completely agree with your second point.
Not technocracy. Technocracy technically means "government by scientists." I don't mean robocracy either, "government by robots."

But rather, what I'm saying is that the necessity to labor for production decreases each year, so utopian Communism is inevitable, just not now. So, the application of economic theory to Communism is flawed and Communism could not be implemented today.

To explain:

Imagine you're a caveman, all by yourself. In a state of nature, labor and production have a 1:1 ratio. Every unit of production requires a unit of labor. Now, put this caveman into a clan of people, with a division of labor. Because of increased efficiency through a division of labor, some can hunt, others can gather, others can grow food. This enables man, in a state of nature, to have a huge excess of labor, which means the clan can engage in non-productive activities.

From this point on, various clans had to compete with one another for resources, such that population growth was a necessity. So, primitive tribal families will often be polygamous and have many children.

Then comes improvements in technology and vast growths of societies. Tribes become nations and technology eliminates much of the necessity for labor, creating unemployment and poverty; capitalism. Under Capitalism, the distribution of wealth from the privileged class to the unproductive class leads to lack of economic productivity, which in turn increases poverty in the long run. Though poverty can be somewhat alleviated by Socialist reforms, it cannot be eliminated, because total wealth distribution in a complex, modern society eliminates the potential for a division of labor, eliminates the incentive to labor, and thus decreases productivity to the point of creating poverty for everyone. However, despite Capitalism's high poverty rate and lack of an ethical justification, through its age of existence, it is preferable even to Socialism. (This is a view many here will find controversial and likely disagree with.)

As time progresses, technology improves, decreasing the amount of labor required for productivity. This, in turn, leads to greater poverty, greater unemployment, less leisure time (longer work-week) as well as declining population growth rates.

Eventually, however, the polarization between the bourgoisie and proletariat become so great and the amount of labor required for productivity is so small that Communism becomes feasible; the Revolution.

In a future, technologically advanced society, the production of the global economy could theoretically be provided for by the labor of a handful of individuals or, indeed, even a single individual. Under such a system, the division of labor is no longer necessary, thus Capitalism is no longer necessary. Capitalism and "property rights," can be shed aside for a utopian Communist society, where poverty , wage-slavery, and economic class are eliminated in favor of a voluntary gift economy, where government may be determined either by democracy, if it even needs to exists at all.

It's my contention, however, that Communism cannot be "established," nor should it be. Because, when Communism is meant to be established, it will be. There is no necessity for violence, propaganda, a dictatorship of the proletariat, radical democracy, or any other effort, whatsoever. And certain measures can actually be countereffective by decreasing productivity and increasing poverty if such actions are premature, attempting to establish Communism before the technological and economic conditions allow for it. All attempts at such will inevitably create a new "elite class," and become degenerated worker states.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2006, 11:07 PM
What about innovation which will bring about this "technological revolution" you communists have such a hard-on for? If people only do the bare minimum, you're all SOL.
Let me emphasize this in bold.

Because under Communism, very few people, if anyone at all need to be forced to labor in order for production to occur.

[Comrade Kurtz]

So you assert then that communism has no real application in the modern world and that it only comes with time? I can accept that.

[YSR]

I think Nathyn's analysis is overly simplistic. Clearly, we are not at such a situation in time in which "very few people" have to labor to uphold society. That state in time is still quite a bit off in the future.

But in the meantime, the answer is mindnumbingly simple: Collective (or "enlightened") self-interest.

I can't really see how there's much else to say on this topic. "Communistic"-type societies have existed in the past. They were run on this premise and they were successful. They all were eventually destroyed externally, not internally.

[piet11111]

poeple might even enjoy their work so much that it has turned into a hobby for them.
you think you can stop a scientist from working when he is so obsessed with his job ?

also under communism i expect many city's to be rebuild to make them more efficient.
for instance trash could easily be disposed of by using an underground system that transports trash to an underground recycling facility.
every house could then have a simple chute to throw the trash directly into the system.
no need for garbagemen to go collect the trash from the streets.

also we could produce materials that are much more durable then modern materials but currently to expensive for such a use.

i would estimate that current existing technology could already cut our workweek from 40+ hours down to 20

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 4 2006, 02:44 AM
I think Nathyn's analysis is overly simplistic. Clearly, we are not at such a situation in time in which "very few people" have to labor to uphold society. That state in time is still quite a bit off in the future.

But in the meantime, the answer is mindnumbingly simple: Collective (or "enlightened") self-interest.

I can't really see how there's much else to say on this topic. "Communistic"-type societies have existed in the past. They were run on this premise and they were successful. They all were eventually destroyed externally, not internally.
I disagree. I don't believe in "collective," interest, but rather, I believe in the equal interest of every individual combined, so that none is favored or exploited. Capitalism is unjust precisely because it is anti-individualist and exploitative of the poor by giving illegitimate ownership to an elite class. Collectivism would be such as that of China. Totalitarianism may, in fact, be even more economically efficient than Capitalism or Socialism, yet even though it benefits the collective, it is unjustifiable. Any ideology must appeal to and defend each individual. If democracy or any form of government violates any individual's rights, it is wrong.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:11 AM
poeple might even enjoy their work so much that it has turned into a hobby for them.
you think you can stop a scientist from working when he is so obsessed with his job ?
But you aren't likely to find many people who would be obsessed with being a janitor, even doing it for free. However, in the future, a network of automated machines could do the same job.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2006, 08:32 PM
What, if not money, will be the driving force for people to work in a socialist society?
What is "money"? What makes it so desirable? I believe you are taking "money" as something much more "objective" than in fact it is.

Luís Henrique

[YSR]

Originally posted by Nathyn+Sep 4 2006, 05:58 AM--> (Nathyn @ Sep 4 2006, 05:58 AM)
Young Stupid [email protected] 4 2006, 02:44 AM
I think Nathyn's analysis is overly simplistic. Clearly, we are not at such a situation in time in which "very few people" have to labor to uphold society. That state in time is still quite a bit off in the future.

But in the meantime, the answer is mindnumbingly simple: Collective (or "enlightened") self-interest.

I can't really see how there's much else to say on this topic. "Communistic"-type societies have existed in the past. They were run on this premise and they were successful. They all were eventually destroyed externally, not internally.
I disagree. I don't believe in "collective," interest, but rather, I believe in the equal interest of every individual combined, so that none is favored or exploited. Capitalism is unjust precisely because it is anti-individualist and exploitative of the poor by giving illegitimate ownership to an elite class. Collectivism would be such as that of China. Totalitarianism may, in fact, be even more economically efficient than Capitalism or Socialism, yet even though it benefits the collective, it is unjustifiable. Any ideology must appeal to and defend each individual. If democracy or any form of government violates any individual's rights, it is wrong. [/b]
You have no idea what I'm talking about here, apparerently. I guess I should make myself more clear.

A.) You are wrong about no one needing to do any work. It's just not technically possible today.

B.) Enlightened self-interest is the realization that working as a group and collectively-owning the means of production (or more accurately, no one owning anything, but sharing all) is a more effective and less heirachial system.

Point B is the basis of pretty much all communist and anarchist theory. It has its variations, for sure. But the basic idea is taking things into common. Thus "communism."

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Comrade Kurtz, have you heard of labor time vouchers?

[Comrade Kurtz]

I cannot say I have.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+Sep 4 2006, 03:48 PM--> (Young Stupid Radical @ Sep 4 2006, 03:48 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:58 AM

Young Stupid [email protected] 4 2006, 02:44 AM
I think Nathyn's analysis is overly simplistic. Clearly, we are not at such a situation in time in which "very few people" have to labor to uphold society. That state in time is still quite a bit off in the future.

But in the meantime, the answer is mindnumbingly simple: Collective (or "enlightened") self-interest.

I can't really see how there's much else to say on this topic. "Communistic"-type societies have existed in the past. They were run on this premise and they were successful. They all were eventually destroyed externally, not internally.
I disagree. I don't believe in "collective," interest, but rather, I believe in the equal interest of every individual combined, so that none is favored or exploited. Capitalism is unjust precisely because it is anti-individualist and exploitative of the poor by giving illegitimate ownership to an elite class. Collectivism would be such as that of China. Totalitarianism may, in fact, be even more economically efficient than Capitalism or Socialism, yet even though it benefits the collective, it is unjustifiable. Any ideology must appeal to and defend each individual. If democracy or any form of government violates any individual's rights, it is wrong.
You have no idea what I'm talking about here, apparerently. I guess I should make myself more clear.

A.) You are wrong about no one needing to do any work. It's just not technically possible today.

B.) Enlightened self-interest is the realization that working as a group and collectively-owning the means of production (or more accurately, no one owning anything, but sharing all) is a more effective and less heirachial system.

Point B is the basis of pretty much all communist and anarchist theory. It has its variations, for sure. But the basic idea is taking things into common. Thus "communism."[/b]
A) Not today, no, but eventually, yes. Because the amount of labor required for production decreases each year. Hence, we can support welfare systems today that would have been impossible 200 years ago. And someday, after now, labor will be virtually unnecessary.

B) The elimination of Capitalism before the elimination of compulsory labor is premature. Because, first, it decreases economic efficiency and increases poverty for a reason any Capitalist could describe. Secondly, it turns the government into a new elite class and Anarchism is unfeasible. Even in democracy, it is simply "tyranny by majority."

[YSR]

Are you suggesting, Nathyn, that we just sit here and wait until some magical time comes, then we can organize revolution against the ruling class?

You truly are a stereotype of how the rightists view us on the far left.

People are dying today. I don't think most people are going to wait for an indefinite future to do something about our lives.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 5 2006, 12:53 AM
Are you suggesting, Nathyn, that we just sit here and wait until some magical time comes, then we can organize revolution against the ruling class?

You truly are a stereotype of how the rightists view us on the far left.

People are dying today. I don't think most people are going to wait for an indefinite future to do something about our lives.
I don't think it's necessary to organize at all, actually, from an individual perspective.

People may be dying, but if there no rational means of eliminating that problem, then you're just appealing to emotion. So far, mixed-markets, such as that of western Europe have been superior to either American Capitalism or radical Socialism, such as that of the former Soviet bloc.

If you have a proposition upon how Socialism can be established successfully, let's hear it. But theories that we just need to overthrow the government in order to achieve Anarchy or direct democracy are crazy and baseless.

[YSR]

If you have a proposition upon how Socialism can be established successfully, let's hear it. But theories that we just need to overthrow the government in order to achieve Anarchy or direct democracy are crazy and baseless.

o rly?

You continue to belabor this point about how anarchy and direct democracy are "crazy and baseless." I'd really love to hear some more evidence besides your grand claims.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 5 2006, 02:56 AM

If you have a proposition upon how Socialism can be established successfully, let's hear it. But theories that we just need to overthrow the government in order to achieve Anarchy or direct democracy are crazy and baseless.

o rly?

You continue to belabor this point about how anarchy and direct democracy are "crazy and baseless." I'd really love to hear some more evidence besides your grand claims.
With Anarchy and Democracy, the problems which make Representative Democracy and Aristocracy fail are the same problems which would make Anarchy and Democracy fail: centralization of power (in democracy and anarchy, "factioning") and the tendency for human beings to abuse power.

Now, I have no explanation, whatsoever as for why either of these two problems seem to be less substantial in representative democracy, but historically, it's worked the best. And, in any case, the burden of proof rests upon those trying to radically overthrow and reform our current institutions, not those wishing to retain them.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2006, 11:01 PM
I cannot say I have.
Well In order for there to be LTVs there would be no Money. Here is a quote from a my blog which explains it.


Labor Time Vouchers. LTVs in short, are basically a measurement of how hard one works at his or her job. It is an account on a computer which you log into when you start working and log out of when you stop. LTVs can be determined by the smaount of stress and effort put into your job. The amount and quality of the product you produce. Or the successful completion of a hard task. When you are finished working, you log out and print the LTVs which you will then save up and use to buy select non-necessities such as electronics and furniture.

[RNK]

I've given this topic some thought. Essentially I've come to the conclusion (not completely hypothetical but also based on observation) that when the "money-whip", which drives so many men and women to take any job they can get, is removed, people will be free to pursue any interest, any career they wish. Of course there won't be a huge line-up of people wanting to be garbage men, and many jobs will have to be filled by willing volunteers who step up to do the right thing for the community -- but I seriously doubt there would ever be any shortage of volunteering in a truely communist society.

[cb9's_unity]

i think that people will revert back to human nature once they realize the benifets of socialism. people today are completly different today than they were during primitive communism and than they will be under socialism. generally people think socialism wouldn't work because there would be no incentives and that humans are naturally greedy. this argument is invalid for the simple reason that if you look back in time the only way for a human to survive was to work with and for his tribe.
i'm not suggesting that this is going to happen over night and it might not even happen over a generation but once people truly realize the benifets of socialism the change back to human nature will come.