Originally posted by pusher robot+August 30, 2007 04:50 pm--> (pusher robot @ August 30, 2007 04:50 pm)Is there any difference at all between an incentive and a punishment? I'm especially curious of the opinion of those who believe in the concept of "wage slavery." This seems to me to be one of the biggest sticking points between capitalists and communists.
Capitalists assume a base line of a state of nature, where "punishments" are sufferings beyond those that would be experienced in a state of nature and "incentives" are gains that would not be realized in a state of nature. Thus, in a capitalist society, "punishments" can only be inflicted for acts that directly hurt other people. Everything else must be accomplished via "incentives."[/b]
You're assuming that punishments and incentives work inherantly as a direct and reasonable moral response without considering the psychological state of the punisher or giver. That is not what happens at all. Incentves / punishments usually don't recognize what the subject will feel and thus be inclined to do as response; in other words, the punishers and motivators are alienated from the people they affect in these ways.
Communism seeks to relieve this disassociation.. this results, in part, in an orientation interested in recognizing that incentives do this or that for this or that kind of person, or a specific person in general. Of course, we can never know anyone fully, but the point of communism is to focus on knowing others rather than competing with them.
Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)Often, however, critiques from communists appear to use an ideal utopia as a baseline, and characterize any failure to deliver on it is a "punishment."[/b]
I use human nature as a baseline. I think our social nature is clear, and from that all the associative nature of communism is explicable and viable. I don't believe in utopia; as Marx might say, I believe in "scientific socialism." I think we can start down a path of more association, less competition, less ignorace, and that we will because humans always fight oppression. Even when we accept oppression we seek forces to call oppressive so we can transfer that sense of oppression that we get from the initial source, which we accept.
pusher
[email protected]
Thus, the employer is "punishing" the laborer by failing to offer a higher wage, rather than declining to provide an incentive as viewed by the capitalist. But if any failure to provide an incentive becomes a punishment, then surely the concept of "punishment" completely swallow up the concept of "incentives" and the concept of "incentives" is lost entirely. Agree or disagree?
Your initial point is flawed. We, or at least I, don't think failure to give adequate wages is punishment. I think it is simply a selfish, alienated act courtesy of capitalism.
You are trying to say that incentive and punishment aren't just similar concepts with opposite interests, but that they are - to a communist - the same thing; that they form a cohesive dichotomy where lack of incentive is always punishment and lack of punishment is always incentive. There is some truth to the concept that not punishing an action encourages that action, and not giving incentive dissuades. But that is not always true, and I don't think communists in general feel that it is always true either; our ideology certainly doesn't hinge on it. It should be noted that Marx said the vice he hated most was submission, so the "communists just blame capitalist for oppression" argument is false; Marx and communists in general recognize(d) that it is a social arrangement that both the oppressed and oppressors accept.
jasmine
You seem to be a kind of right-wing mirror for the people who post here. You evaluate objectively without the encumbrance of emotion. It's all bulllshit, you and them. Neither of you are serious about understanding anything.
Just because people have been pricks to you doesn't mean you should just troll, Jasmine, and I think it's especially unfair to judge us all at once. There are many, perhaps a majority, that try to analyse things without recognizing emotion (or at least claim that), but I hardly think that I'm one of them, among plenty others here.
I know you have a lot to offer, why don't you start doing that instead Jasmine? You're very intelligent, know a lot more about Marx than most here (including me), and you care. As much as people like to act like they don't change their minds when they talk to people like you, who aren't afraid to say what they see, they are wrong. And we certainly need more posters here who have compassion for humans rather than ideas.