Incentive, Profit and Transition

[Pogue]

Ok, so a few questions here, please answer them clearly and as precisely as possible because its bothering me.

First, generally, to all communists, because this is the last theoretical bit I can't grasp:

Take for example a drugs company, who research and produce cures to diseases, which they then sell privately, because they make a huge profit. I.e. companies who look into and find cancer treatment and make a bomb from it.

Where is the incentive for people to spend time and expertese doing this when there is no profit motive? Assuming our socialism is worldwide, you could say they'll do it because otherwise they wont have anywhere to do it, but what would stop them going somewhere else to sell their expertese if we made public those companies they work for who sell these drugs when we have a revolution in only a certain part of the world.

By which I mean:

Say we had a revolution in the whole of Europe but not the USA, South America, etc. And we needed to get our economy going, and we needed cancer drugs research, but because theres no more huge profits, the experts, scientists/researchers don't want to work for us and go work for a private drugs company in the capitalist USA. Where is the incentive to work?

I know if revolution was worldwide and it implemented worldwide communism, then we'd see these companies starting because communism would be our working society and they'd get used to it. But how would we get them to work for us while we built communism, say, in our socialist phase? When we meet resistance from capitalist countries/groups during our revolution, wont our needed experts flock to where the moneys at?

Say the revolution was worldwide and so we had worldwide socialist transitonary phase. Perhaps then we could keep the experts producing drugs.

But anarchism says there is no workers state, no 'socialist' phase. So how, when the factories are taken and the power is in our hands, do we get those experts to work for us and produce drugs, etc, when they could flock to where theres huge profits in capitalist nations.

Sorry if this sounds nooby but I'm very much concerned. And I typed this quickly as a brainstorm so the English isn't very good. Apologies. I'm not trolling, I'm an Communist too, as you know, I've been on this forum for a year now and I'm active and shit, but recently I'd be sorting out HOW we get to communism as opposed to the specifics of what we do when we get there and this problem of incentive in the communist society came up for me just 10 mins ago and I got concerned so came here. Again, hence the bad english.

[AnthArmo]

excellent question, one that's easily answerable. Your assuming that Capitalist psychology would still exist in such a society! there are more incentives to work than just the profit incentive, artists work to create art, Scientists want mankind (or humankind I should say) to know more and discover more. As such a doctors incentive to work is overwhelmingly that to help other people. Not to make money.

Another important fact is that, assuming Socialism isn't worldwide, and that a Socialist country had it's wealth spread out more evenly amongst the people. Then people will on average be better paid than they're capitalist counterparts anyway! If the wealth is distributed evenly then the majority will be paid more, as such there is no incentive to go to a capitalist country to sell your wares.

And finally, assuming Socialism was worldwide. then the Anthropic principle will take place. The chances that somebody has the knowledge and skills to cure cancer/aids/other random diseases and the compassion to do it out of want to make the world a better place would be about 1:100000000 or something like that, right? well in a world of several billion people, then you'll get at least one person who tries to cure cancer and succeed.

Besides, I personally think that having to pay for something like health care is wrong, health care is a human right and shouldn't have a price tag attached to it.

[Wake Up]

The OP's point about loosing specialists to capitalists states is a good one.
Human nature will change but not immediately and imagine the media assault that any communist/anarchist 'state' would receive.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Anarchist here.

Firstly, let's not use the phrase 'paradise,' at the risk of sounding too much like Moore.



But anarchism says there is no workers state, no 'socialist' phase. So how, when the factories are taken and the power is in our hands, do we get those experts to work for us and produce drugs, etc, when they could flock to where theres huge profits in capitalist nations.Profit maximization in a non-statist market would be severely limited, remember. Without a state, there would not be patent and intellectual property protections, relatively few market barriers, and the corporate model of business wouldn't be beneficial due to the inability to claim personhood over a company. In addition, I would think social and some individualist anarchists might dispute the capitalist's ownership claim, bringing up costs for his private defense until he had to give in to demands or lose money. Making billions while the average worker scratches out a few thousand is impossible under any form anarchism. Let's not assume the chance of becoming Bill Gates would be possible without the state, because that's clearly not the case. It's also questionable if a market would even be stable - free banking? Historically it did "okay," but in America, Switzerland, and Australia the banks gave a splendid death. It's also questionable if their markets could handle monopolies like roads. They can be built, but there's very, very little competition.

So it's very likely that you would become more prosperous from working in a socialist collective, as well as the additional benefit of not having a boss.

Plus, in the unlikely scenario that they did go work for a market, that just saves us resources. :D We're not going to recognize intellectual property. Just import the knowledge and mass-produce the drug.


Take for example a drugs company, who research and produce cures to diseases, which they then sell privately, because they make a huge profit. I.e. companies who look into and find cancer treatment and make a bomb from it.Let's also remember drug companies and drug employees are different enigmas.

[revolution inaction]

Drugs companies make huge profits but as far as I know researchers don't get paid a huge amount.

[Wake Up]

Anarchist here.
We're not going to recognize intellectual property.
[/LEFT]

Sorry to side track here but what do you mean by this?
Is a musicians song not their 'property'?
I realize that they wont be able to make money out of it, but as a musician myself all we want is to be accredited with the song.

[Wake Up]

Drugs companies make huge profits but as far as I know researchers don't get paid a huge amount.

nope, my mother's a virologist and has worked on aids, flu cancer etc.
She just gets a standard wage for her work, if the drug is successful she gets nothing extra. However she does get immense satisfaction from her work and the knowledge that she is helping people recover from disease.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Sorry to side track here but what do you mean by this?
Is a musicians song not their 'property'?
I realize that they wont be able to make money out of it, but as a musician myself all we want is to be accredited with the song.

I'm not equating attributions with intellectual property (copyrights, patents). I think an association would stipulate that - at least on mass-scale production - the legitimate author is given his proper recognition. Unlike intellectual property, requiring the band/author/artist's name does not monopolize material.

[al8]

And if we have abolished all money and socialized all production of consumable goods, wanting 'mo money' just wouldn't make sense. All needs would be met to such a degree that the level emigration of people would be negligeble. And another social, political and ethical code would naturally spring from the new economic setup, or at least be given vent more easily than in a capitalist economic setup.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Indeed. If socialism cannot provide a better means of living than capitalism, then it is failed regardless of what happens. We are all presuming, from logic and historical examples, that socialism would be a much better alternative.