A pretty big flaw of communism... - got brought up in class

[Rebelde para Siempre]

One thing we were debating at school was the pros and cons of both capitalism and communism.

One argument was brought up about communism -
In a communist society people have a lack of motivation to go out and work, I mean most people wouldn't try to work harder if they would always get the same amount as a person who is slacking off on the job. It just seems that money and wealth seems to be the sole driving force for the majority of people (even though it sickens me).

I had no response, because in a materialist sense, it is true. What do you think?

[mentalbunny]

This is why communism must happen slowly, as the social concsiousness of society evolves. Eventually people will understand that they have to give to society to get things back, there may be a few who won't co-operate but the majority will. However in the mean time people need to have a similar system to now, just changing gradually over the years, people still need rewards and security.

[Pete]

They must of had no knowledge on the Cuban Revolution, because that statement is false.

"On other occasions in our history the act of total dedication to the revolutionary cause was repeated. During the October crisis and in the days of Hurricane Flora we saw exceptional deeds of valor and sacrifice performed by an entire people. Finding the formula to perpetuate this heroic attitude in daily life is, from the ideological standpoint, one of our fundamental tasks...This many-faceted agency is not, as is claimed, the sum of units of the self-same type, behaving like a tame flock of sheep, and reduced, moreover, to that type by the system imposed from above. It is true that it follows its leaders, basically Fidel Castro, without hesitation; but the degree to which he won this trust corresponds precisely to the degree that he interpreted the people's desires and aspirations correctly, and to the degree that he made a sincere effort to fulfill the promises he made... The initiative generally comes from Fidel or from the Revolutionary High Command, and is explained to the people who adopt it as theirs. In some cases the party and government utilize a local experience which may be of general value to the people, and follow the same procedure.

Nevertheless, the state sometimes makes mistakes. When one of these mistakes occurs, a decline in collective enthusiasm is reflected by a resulting quantitative decrease of the contribution of each individual, each of the elements forming the whole of the masses. Work is so paralyzed that insignificant quantities are produced. It is time to make a correction
...Clearly this mechanism is not adequate for insuring a succession of judicious measures. A more structured connection with the masses is needed and we must improve it in the course of the next years. But as far as initiatives originating in the upper strata of the government are concerned, we are presently utilizing the almost intuitive method of sounding out general reactions to the great problems we confront. In this Fidel is a master, whose own special way of fusing himself with the people can be appreciated only by seeing him in action. At the great public mass meetings one can observe something like a counterpoint between two musical melodies whose vibrations provoke still newer notes. Fidel and the mass begin to vibrate together in a dialogue of growing intensity until they reach the climax in an abrupt conclusion culminating in our cry of struggle and victory..."

These quotes are from Man and Socialism In Cuba (http://www.che-lives.com/home/manandsoci.shtml). You can easily refute that statement by saying useless tasks that donot benifit the people will not be done. Or by using Che's words.

Don't look at that as a flaw but as a benifit. The people choose what they do, it is not forced upon them inorder to survive!

[bolshevik1917]

This flaw is non existant. What your class have done here is to take a worker who has been brought up in a capitalist society and place him in a communist society, this is not a fair trial.

We have established that conditions determine consciousness, so when people are not employed to do tasks (eg when it becomes a habit) they do not see work as a chore but as a part of life. With the massive reduction on working hours people will not toil or slack because they can have their work done quicker and with more hands to help.

The two points I would put to your class are..

1. Slaves are the least productive, least motivated workers.

2. Co-operation is more productive than competition

[Show me the Money]

hear, hear, bolshevik!!

and furthermore, with more co-operation and less competition, work can become a social thing(what it sometimes in a capitalistic society also is) less than a need, and so you will be honoured to have a job, regardless of what's in it for you!!

[Rebelde para Siempre]

Keep in mind I'm not defending capitalism here but just presenting an argument that people will use against points brought up -


1. Slaves are the least productive, least motivated workers.

2. Co-operation is more productive than competition

1. If a slave believes he will become rich by working hard, he will work hard.

2. Competition is just as, if not more productive than co-operation. Corporations will always strive to make the best products or services. This level of competition means (supposedly) that the quality and amount produced will be ever increasing.

This is also an example where you can look to the fall of communism. They say a reason the USSR collapsed is because it's economy was too stagnant. People were no longer motivated to work, to produce fine goods or anything because there was lack of reward.

[Valkyrie]

Yes, there is some bases to what you are saying. I think that is because people are working for The State (notice how I always capitalise not just State, but also the word "The", that is because The State now becomes The Corporation.) When Marx was talking about man being alienated by his labor, he was talking about the individual being himself, not the moral incentive to work for the betterment of mankind, but man's individual enslavment and drudgery to the labor he produces-- but as each individual man's alienation rears itself, it thus becomes a whole, a global alienation, a common denominator among all humans..

Hence, you have The State, now the boss and antagonizer, feudling off a whole labor force under the pretext that the people own and share their labor. A paradox that can be solved by the anarchist system of socialism, where People's Cooperatives replace The State for a laborforce of self-determination and Self-Management.

Even Che and Fidel had differences of opinion on this question. Che believed in the moral incentive to work.. And Fidel thought the people could be inticed to work through material incentives and rewards.

[bolshevik1917]

If 'the state' is run like one giant corpiration like it was before the collapse of the USSR then the worker will notice no fundimental difference between capitalism and 'communism' - because technically communism has not been acheived.

Read Marx, Engels, Lenin or Trotsky on the state. The state must wither away, but it can only wither away if the workers are in control - this is when we would notice a difference in lifestyle.

If we look at the slave argument. Take a factory worker who works 12 hour shifts for poor wages, his motivation will be nil!

Compare him to someone who contributes to society what he is capable of. His needs are catered for, he has free time to enjoy his passions. He will undoubtedly be the more productive of the two!

Then there is co-operation Vs competition. If we study man in the years of primative communism we can see it is human nature to co-operate. If one hunter in a tribe killed a hippo there would be no use him hiding it from the others, he would never be able to move it, skin it, cook it and eat it on his own. Co-operation is only natural in humans. The system of capitalism causes us to grow up into competition, but that system will be overthrown.

Once again, lack of democracy in the USSR was its downfall. Therfore it is unfair to use the USSR as an example of communism because in the words of Engels "socialism without democracy is not socialism at all"

[MJM]

A few quick points.
Competition of labour motivates the worker not money. If they don't work hard enough they get fired, then no job. If they don't like the work conditions, they can go elsewhere.
So competition of labour has more benefits for the capitalist than competition of products for us- coke or pepsi hhmmm...

All surveys of worker happiness I've ever seen hows they want what? More money, NO!
More free time, time for family and friends, for recreational pursuits. Only marxism can offer this.

Do a little research on the money vs freee time thing and show your class the results of that, then see how they explain this.

[Guardia Bolivariano]

The motivation should be working for the good of the human raise and your felow comrade!
If we just look at Cuba we would see how dedicated people are to their work so much so they travel the world to help those in need and only get the apreciation in return.

[Pete]

"The State (notice how I always capitalise not just State, but also the word "The", that is because The State now becomes The Corporation.) "

This is fascism which you describe. Corporatism is another name for it.

"Even Che and Fidel had differences of opinion on this question. Che believed in the moral incentive to work.. And Fidel thought the people could be inticed to work through material incentives and rewards."

I agree. Che talked highly of moral inscentives and the power of wanting to work has over the workers. He said that when they did not enjoy or see the necissity of some jobs the collective enthusasism dropped and the local councils created a local remedy to the problem from adopting the workers point of view to negotiating an inbetween (so tht the big picture is looked at). This way both Material and Moral inscentives could be applied.

"because technically communism has not been acheived."

Niether has capitalism. *shivers* imagine corporations ruling the world!

Link
"Then there is co-operation Vs competition. If we study man in the years of primative communism we can see it is human nature to co-operate. If one hunter in a tribe killed a hippo there would be no use him hiding it from the others, he would never be able to move it, skin it, cook it and eat it on his own. Co-operation is only natural in humans. The system of capitalism causes us to grow up into competition, but that system will be overthrown. "
To
"All surveys of worker happiness I've ever seen hows they want what? More money, NO!
More free time, time for family and friends, for recreational pursuits. Only marxism can offer this. "
This and you have the most effective counter arguement against that cappies' flawed arguement



I hate ikon boards because they wreck the quotes :(

(Edited by CrazyPete at 3:07 pm on Feb. 24, 2003)

[CheViveToday]

Yes RPS I hear that argument in history class all the time. I agree with what everyone here is saying. Che used to work the better part of the day, and then on the weekend he would donate his time working other places. Did he get money out of this? Of course not, nor is that what he wanted. He just wanted to see a Socialist Cuba succeed. This could motivate many people. It would motivate nearly everyone who had been born into a communist/socialist country. I also believe it would catch on with people who were citizens of a capitalist society, gradually turned Socialist. Sure, not everyone would be motivated by this, but I'm sure the lazy people would not go unpunished. I don't mean death by firing squad, but perhaps the harder you work, the more benefits [freetime, etc] you get, as well as the better job and field you can work in. Eventually this would motivate nearly everyone.

[Valkyrie]

Yes, exactly, it could very well be fascism.

Socialism post-capitalism requisites justification of The State.

[Valkyrie]

Aside from my reservations of The State.

It seems there is an assumption there would be no compensation for work performed, (I prefer the trade/barter system myself for non-essentials) however, there may well be a stipend as an incentive to work. the main incentive is that you are recieving your basic entitlements from the collect of society from which to live and therefore would contribute back that share.

[Hegemonicretribution]

In response you could ask what the motivaion is in capitalism when people do not have to work. The state will not allow them to merely die (at least in the west), there are benifits for those not working. So if they can get away with doing less already, and capitalism is obviously sort of functioning to some degree, why wouldn't communism?

Another point is that the moral motivation is obviously there. In Britain no-one in their right mind would of entered teaching or public healthcare. (Things are getting betterish) They were not the jobs with the best incentives when you consder the workload and training involved. However people still had a desire to right....Just like many of us, the main benifitors of capitalism, wanting to equal things out a little.

[hawarameen]

money has been proven time and time again to be a short term motivator.

if you are earning £5 per hour and you think you need more, you work harder and harder so you may get £7 per hour.
eventually you forget you were ever on £5 and £7 is not enough. giving more money to workers is a short term motivator after a while the increase in money becomes normal. maslow's hierachy of needs is a major theory in human resources and the one thing that people want most, what they need more than anything is self actualisation, i.e. self esteem/ self worth. this is what communism tries to do

[Saint-Just]

The working class work as hard as they are required. The work for their preservation, often without substantial luxuries. Life is a part of human nature and more ober a necessary funtion for the preservation of society dictated by objective socialisation.

Socialism provides all necessities, the working class sweat blood to attain the independant provision of necessities. You suggest that under socialism they would not work because they cannot achieve any class upheaval and improve their social position when currently they, as I said, sweat blood for social resolution.

[Pete]

"The working class work as hard as they are required. The work for their preservation, often without substantial luxuries."

A living example. At my work we get 7.67$ an hour. If I work my ass off I will get 7.67$ an hour. If I work as little as I do now (get the minimum done and do some customer service, which isnt my job, and slack) I get 7.67$. After 6 months I get 8.50$ regardless how hard I work. I have no inscentive to work hared then I have to. I will work as hard as I am required to keep my job and pay for my education.

[redstar2000]

It's just the old "human nature" argument again. <yawn> If there were no material "incentives", we'd all just lie on the grass and look at the pretty clouds.

All you have to do, RpS, is ask the people in your class if there is anything that they enjoy doing that is also productive in any way...and that they don't get paid for?

Like posting to message boards, for example.

I think the "urge" to do useful and interesting things is built in or hard-wired into humans...only a very small number of people would actually prefer to spend their entire lives doing nothing.

The "material incentives" that the pro-capitalist people talk about normally concern "work" that is boring, degrading, dangerous...or any combination thereof.

Further, the "incentive" boils down to "eat this shit or starve" (in class, you can rephrase that to "consume this excrement" or starve). It has little to do with "bettering oneself" and a great deal to do with avoiding catastrophe. Under such circumstances, it would be crazy for a worker not to do as little as possible.

The so-called "lack of incentives" had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR, which was due to a variety of causes...internal corruption being outstanding, in my opinion.

The "normal" incentive of the capitalist economy--work or die--is just that of a concentration camp with a really competent interior decorator.

:cool:

[Rebelde para Siempre]

Good points people. I'll use them if I ever get into that argument again.

[PeArCeY]

The way I see it, the best way of getting round this problem is by adopting a sort of worker SHARES scheme. Shares might be a capitalist idea, but the point is, because all business in communism is co-operative (like the co-op in the UK) but without shares, this gives no insentive for workers to work, where as if shares are introduced to this aspect of communism, workers will. u see, the way it works is that each worker in a co-operative buys shares in the business, meaning that the harder he works and the more successful his business becomes, the more money he gets. By doing this, workers will work very hrad, becasue they have the chance to get more money. Its a shame it has to work this way, but that is the best solution and I believe, a very effective one.

[Valkyrie]

Certain businesses do have Profit-sharing in the US also. Generally, the way it's set up here in a lot of companies ---- you do not see those shares until you retire or leave the business. Microsoft has a Profit-sharing deal, I think profit on their stock or something, and has made Millionaires out of quite a few of their employees. But,That way still builds a wealth base of inequality. The basic tenent - "To each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" should be the incentive to work and the individual share they receive. If someone needs something, or the need is anticipated it should be produced -- eliminating the surplus production of incidentals. Certain industries would find themselves displaced and obsolete. displaced workforces would be integrated to industries where they are needed. I think the one of the reasons why the labor did not lighten for the USSR and China is because they still participated in trade on the world market,at the Capitalist level, -importing, exporting, etc.

[mentalbunny]

The ideas on this thread are great, carry on discussin, sorry I don't really have anything to add, except we have to remember that nothgin works for everbody and different people need different incentives.

[DEFMARX]

What people need to realize is that admitting to the "flaw" of Marxism (i.e. lack of motivation for workers) is self defeating and lowers the bar for humanity. The reason why people in today's society are solely driven by money and personal gain is not because of an inherent aspect of human nature. People today are driven only by greed because it is what ensures survival. If people worked for the betterment of others, they would surely live a life of struggle and financial difficulties.
Also, the thought of not working in a Marxist society because "someone else will do the work" is a false idea mostly promoted by capitalists. Some people may ask, why would I want to study and work hard to become a lawyer, or surgeon (jobs that require much more dicipline and study then say a taxi driver)? The answer is that Marx did not support a flat salary for every person in society. What he promoted was a more justifiable inequality ratio. For example, a doctor (highest paid position) would recieve ten times as much as a farmer (the lowest paid position). Therefore, if a person did want to make more money than someone else, or think they deserved more they would more than likely recieve that.

[redstar2000]

Defmarx, I think the idea that Marx would have "approved" a 10 to 1 ratio in compensation is, well, dubious.

In the formula "to each according to his needs", I doubt that anyone "needs" 10 times as much as another...presuming that other is receiving enough to live in dignity.

A while ago, there was a thread that examined the idea of compensation under communism. I, among others, suggested an "inverted pyramid"...that is, those who have the most challenging and rewarding jobs would receive a baseline financial compensation while those who did the "shit jobs" on which technological civilization rests would receive up to four times as much in financial compensation. High job satisfaction = low pay; low job satisfaction = high pay.

I still think this is the best way to go.

:cool:

[mentalbunny]

Hmm, sounds like a good idea, redstar, but I'm not sure, Maybe there should be an increased wage for those with less pleasurable jobs, but not much. They could have other kinds of rewards like less work, longer holidays, rather than more money.

[DEFMARX]

Redstar2000- Well actually, it is exactly a 10 to 1 ratio that is currently being used in Cuba's economy right now. And as I said, it is the doctor that recieves ten times as much as the farmer.
I dont' see it as the Marxist' goal to eliminate all income disparities and let everyone work and recieve the same wages universally. The goal is the elimination of exploitation. Pocessing more than someone else is not immoral, but in fact, it is denying those that deserve wealth that is unjust. Marx saw that capitalism allowed for unrestricted and ever-growing wealth disparities. This obviously leads to the exploitation of the workers and gradual elimination of human rights. It was this sort of uncontrolled disparities that Marx tried to eliminate. Not all differences of income. If you can show me any literature that claims Marx's goal was to make a universal income for all of society, I would be very interested to see it.

[Anonymous]

he who can work and doesn shall not eat...

i think thats a good incentive to shirkers...

this whole idea of communism makes people lazy is purely stupid...

it is the complete oposite, see without a boss you can work faster, bether and with less work hours...
therefore without the whole bureocracy of having a stupid boss on your ass you can work without stress and pressures, choosing when and how to work best with the less pain....

and still the work will me made in time and with A quality...

[Valkyrie]

I personally don't like the money-exchange system at all and much more prefer a trade-barter system which has the benefit of eliminating much waste when someone does not want something anymore, is a great recycling program and also allows people to use their individual talent and skills for exchange rather than the impersonal labor note which really is an unrewarded reward for labor. That you recieve cash, you feel compelled to whittle it away as it is just a piece of paper.

The flaw I see in allowing wage disparities post-capitalist, would be that the one recieving higher wages could hoarde the money away.. buy really expensive things and make the people around him feel a class division, and also feel once again the alienation of his own labor; that his labor is not equal to another person's labor, which is not true at all. I would hope that in a Socialist/communist system everyone's labor would be deemed as an important element of keeping society together.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I haven't read the whole thread, but Marx's answer to this was that if it were true that we'ed all become unmotivated once financial incentive were taken away, this would have happened in capitalism long ago, since many people who work less receive more money, while many people who work more get less money.

I also like Redstar's idea, but I believe that many Cappies will use the, "why would anyone wanna be a doctor when they could be a mailman and get the same pay?" argument.

[KRAZYKILLA]

there is no such thing as being a total communist..

[Iepilei]

what's to keep a man from being a doctor over a mailman?

simple - his desires. truth be told, people want to MAKE something of their lives, some just dont' have the means or fall on shortcomings. believe it or not, there are actually people (still) who become doctors not for the income, but the sheer willingness and desire to help people.

will you have your lazy people? to a extent yes, but you'll always need someone to clean tables or cashier. but myself, personally, would enjoy working a whole lot more if I knew the effort I put into the company to help it be profitable would be seen in my hands in some way/shape/form.

[Xvall]

I will only give you this; from the manifesto itself.

"It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital. "

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from bolshevik1917 on 7:12 pm on Feb. 24, 2003



Compare him to someone who contributes to society what he is capable of. His needs are catered for, he has free time to enjoy his passions. He will undoubtedly be the more productive of the two!

Then there is co-operation Vs competition.......


It is all just theory. Do you have any studies to support your opinion?

http://www.ncpa.org/ea/eajf93/eajf93a.html

We should not base public policy on "common knowlege", unproven theory, and academic models of human behavior. Sorry to get into this discussion late. I believe your short snipet says what I have been reading on this thread in a nutshell.

The National Center for Policy Analysis says competition is the driving force for productivity.

[Monks Aflame]

in response to competition vs. co-operation: the hunter-gatherer socieities relied on co-operation because that's what worked and helped everyone survived. They lived in tiny isolated communities, there was no one and nothing to compete with. There were only a few families, and I assume living in such close quarters, there were few feuds and little malice

in response to laziness: you could of course, give people jobs they want to do. This would of course, motivate them to complete their job to the best of their ability. Then again, there are some jobs that no one, or at least very, very few, people like doing. Examples: garbage collector. You could give these people better benefits, shorter hours, longer holidays, as aforementioned.

Is there any possibility for a revolution, rather, overthrown of the monetary system? Greed is a factor in human nature and work ethic when competition exists. But if people do not need to compete for food and money, food because its provided, money because it doesn't exist, then would greed end?

Also: Everyone who is at the top of the hill currently are most likely not zealous in ending the status quo and giving up the wealth. How do you deal with these? Death makes you look like savages. They control most of the resources, military, and such, so how do you deal with them?

[Felicia]

Quote: from Rebelde para Siempre on 10:13 am on Feb. 24, 2003
One thing we were debating at school was the pros and cons of both capitalism and communism.

One argument was brought up about communism -
In a communist society people have a lack of motivation to go out and work, I mean most people wouldn't try to work harder if they would always get the same amount as a person who is slacking off on the job. It just seems that money and wealth seems to be the sole driving force for the majority of people (even though it sickens me).

I had no response, because in a materialist sense, it is true. What do you think?

(I haven't read the other posts, so I don't know if this has been said)

Ok, look at it this way. If no one works, than nothing gets done, and no one gets any moolah. Therefore, people should want to work harder 'cause after all, the harder everyone works, the more money everyone gets :) (ok, I know that's oversimplified, but I don't care :P )

[Monks Aflame]

felicia, that's true; but if you slack off a little bit, it won't affect you directly, at least suddenly. Also, I'm pretty sure people are paid for their work, at least not with capital, but rather with services, such as healthcare, education, so on.