So how exactly does it work?

[Skin_HeadBanger]

ok, first before I ask the question, I believe people in general are stupid and lazy. I believe that true socialism is an ideal thing, but I just have one question about it to make it practical in my own mind...

what keeps the populace working if there is no incentive for them to work? In capitalism, you have the whole "American dream" scam of working your way up the ladder, in fascist social states its work or die. It seems like liberty, while enough motivation for me, will not be enough for the sheep to go by, and eventually they would stop working because there would be no conseqences to fear.

Help, please? Any input is greatly appreciated.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

ok, first before I ask the question, I believe people in general are stupid and lazy. I believe that true socialism is an ideal thing, but I just have one question about it to make it practical in my own mind...

what keeps the populace working if there is no incentive for them to work? In capitalism, you have the whole "American dream" scam of working your way up the ladder, in fascist social states its work or die. It seems like liberty, while enough motivation for me, will not be enough for the sheep to go by, and eventually they would stop working because there would be no conseqences to fear.

Help, please? Any input is greatly appreciated.
First, you need to differentiate between socialism and communism. What you're talking about sounds more like communism. Socialism maintains the material incentive to work. In fact, one of the key advantages of socialism is precisely the fact that your income will depend entirely on how much you work. This is not the case under capitalism, where hard workers are exploited and get paid low wages while others make millions of dollars on the stock market without lifting a finger.

In fact, since socialism distributes income according to work, people will have more of a material incentive to work under socialism than under capitalism (in capitalism the incentive is not to work, but to "make money" - which often does not involve doing anything productive).

Communism, on the other hand, is a system where all (or at least the vast majority of) goods and services are freely available to everyone. Of course this means that there will be no material incentive to work, but we don't propose to establish communism tomorrow. We propose to establish socialism tomorrow. Communism can only come about once technology has advanced to the point where we don't need people to work as much as they do today.

And there's another thing to keep in mind about communism and work: There is always a tradeoff between work and free time. If people would like to work less and give up material rewards for increased free time, then who are we to argue? If it is indeed true that people want to work less than they do now, then the problem is not with communism - the problem is with capitalism for making people work more than they want.

[Kukulofori]

What about anarchy then?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

In many cases, anarchy means the same thing as communism. But not in all cases - different anarchists have different views, and it's probably best if I let them explain it.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

First, you need to differentiate between socialism and communism. What you're talking about sounds more like communism. Socialism maintains the material incentive to work. In fact, one of the key advantages of socialism is precisely the fact that your income will depend entirely on how much you work. This is not the case under capitalism, where hard workers are exploited and get paid low wages while others make millions of dollars on the stock market without lifting a finger.

In fact, since socialism distributes income according to work, people will have more of a material incentive to work under socialism than under capitalism (in capitalism the incentive is not to work, but to "make money" - which often does not involve doing anything productive).

Communism, on the other hand, is a system where all (or at least the vast majority of) goods and services are freely available to everyone. Of course this means that there will be no material incentive to work, but we don't propose to establish communism tomorrow. We propose to establish socialism tomorrow. Communism can only come about once technology has advanced to the point where we don't need people to work as much as they do today.

And there's another thing to keep in mind about communism and work: There is always a tradeoff between work and free time. If people would like to work less and give up material rewards for increased free time, then who are we to argue? If it is indeed true that people want to work less than they do now, then the problem is not with communism - the problem is with capitalism for making people work more than they want.


ahhh, thank you man, I've been struggling to understand the difference between communism and socialism, and no one has been able to explain it like that.:thumbup1:

also, I feel that communism (as you explained it) can only come through globalization... your thoughts?

[Bright Banana Beard]

also, I feel that communism (as you explained it) can only come through globalization... your thoughts?

Internationalism, you meant. Capitalism will try to destroy communism because of ongoing feeling for more capital.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

Internationalism, you meant. Capitalism will try to destroy communism because of ongoing feeling for more capital.


exactly, so the only way that full communism could be obtained is through internationalism in the sense that all capitalism would need to be wiped out?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

exactly, so the only way that full communism could be obtained is through internationalism in the sense that all capitalism would need to be wiped out?
Yes. Ok, maybe not necessarily all capitalism, but it will at least be necessary to overthrow capitalism in all the countries that have large populations, powerful economies, or both.

Communism could easily exist if the last remaining capitalist countries are Bhutan, Chad and Colombia. It could not exist if the last remaining capitalist countries are Russia, India and the United States.

[ZeroNowhere]

ahhh, thank you man, I've been struggling to understand the difference between communism and socialism, and no one has been able to explain it like that.:thumbup1:
I prefer 'socialism and communism are synonyms', but that's just me not being a Leninist.
As for incentives, there's always labour credits. Marx supported their use in the lower stage of socialism, which Kwisatz had described as 'socialism', while in the higher stage of socialism, "after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly," can we get rid of said labour credits.

[Drace]

In fact, since socialism distributes income according to work, people will have more of a material incentive to work under socialism than under capitalism (in capitalism the incentive is not to work, but to "make money" - which often does not involve doing anything productive).Agreed. It is rather the profit motive that eliminates the will to work harder. Since under capitalism there are two classes that come into opposition, only one wins. This is of course, the capitalists. They too are driven by the profit motive, and since they are the ones with power, they have it their way. This means more profit for them, which is only possible through worser conditions and wages for their workers. And this too, is profit driven.
The workers do not receive any extra for their hard work as the capitalists are in control and rewarding them would be against their interests.

The argument really fails to understand how capitalism functions.

[Potemkin]

(Sorry everyone, this is long. Many issues to discuss, though.)

The claim that people are "stupid and lazy" is problematic. If that's the nature of humanity, what's the point in trying to improve it? Also, do you mean we are genetically this way, or just this generation of people, brought up under this system?

I would argue that most of the working-class is, in fact, hard-working, and will do what it takes to care for themselves and their families. You would say this is because they are economically coerced into productivity. I would say, instinctually, we want to help and care for our friends and relatives. This is called mutual aid. In "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" Peter Kropotkin argued that mutual aid is just as important to evolution as "survival of the fittest." In biology, this is called mutualism. On a genetic level, it just makes sense to help my relatives and offspring survive, as it increases the likelihood of my genetic material continuing on. Also, being able to take care of yourself and others around you is a sign of health, which is important from a reproductive standpoint. So, it's in our nature to help each other. I wouldn't say we're lazy. Plus, our species is a creative and productive one. As for stupidity, I'd say that's a byproduct of the system we live under.

Even if we do accept that people are "stupid and lazy," though, there is no reason to believe there wouldn't be an incentive to work in a communist or anarchist society, as it would be in the best interests of the individual.

From an anarchist-communist perspective (i.e., non-Marxist), people would come together to decide what is needed in the community, contribute to its production, and in turn, reap what they need to survive (this has been talked about on other threads, perhaps someone can post the links to them?). Society would not be obligated to meet the needs of those that didn't contribute in some way, and might be asked to leave if they are a burden. However, if they don't want to work, and figure out some other arrangement to meet their needs, why is that bad?

Along similar lines, what is so great about work? True, humans are a creative and productive species, but people that create and produce don't necessarily have to "work." In an anarchist-communist society, unnecessary production would be stopped, everyone would contribute to the best of their abilities (100% employment), and the "work" that remained would be retooled to be more efficient and... fun. Hardly like "work" at all! This would drastically reduce the amount of labor per individual needed for their survival, and would allow people more time to produce, create, and be good friends, neighbors, relatives, etc.

Moving on, I'm not sure about the differences between socialism and communism. If those listed above are indeed the differences, it seems that socialism would eventually allow the people that "worked the hardest" to gain an advantage, recreating class society. And what about the people that, for whatever reason, aren't able to work that much, or may not be able to work enough to even keep themselves alive (the handicapped, for instance)? Under anarchist-communism, it is recognized that a handicapped person still has a unique contribution to give to society, and in giving what they can, are entitled to the necessaries of survival, not simply the product of their labor. This is one reason why anarchist-communists reject currency and the wage system.

I agree that a problem with capitalism is that it makes people work more than they want, and that it makes people work at all. This should be voluntary. I would argue that it's already very possible to drastically reduce the amount of time the individual spends at work, with no decrease in the quality of life. Imagine how good we'd all have it if the wealth of the ruling class was expropriated and equally divided, unnecessary production (and most of the service industry) eliminated, and we all (100% employment) contributed what we could to the production of what we decided was needed (as a society/town/neighborhood)? It is imaginable that the workweek would be dramatically reduced tomorrow.

Kijuna, hopefully this outlines a bit for you this issue from an anarchist perspective.

Kwisatz, yes, the end result of communism and anarchism is pretty much the same. Hopefully I was able to lay out what this might look like clearly.

[GPDP]

In fact, one of the key advantages of socialism is precisely the fact that your income will depend entirely on how much you work.

Just for further clarification, what do you mean by "how much you work"? Does this maxim entail how much you produce, how much you contribute, how hard you work, how much you sacrifice, etc.?

[Diagoras]

Well, Potemkin, being the helpful over-achiever, has beaten me to a potential response. So, I'll briefly address something else ;).

SHB, I am just curious as to how you came about to your conclusions on humanity. I am hesitant to use the term "human nature", because you did not say whether the stupidity or laziness of people was inherent or systemic. In making a minor addition, I would say that perhaps you underestimate the true diversity of human cultures over time (a cursory look at some basic cultural anthropology might be useful in examining this... and it can actually be quite fun to explore such variety in social arrangement), and how much the conditions we find ourselves in truly shape what we are and are capable of, and indeed how we view the world and others around us (thus in turn shaping our ethics and ideas). If people act lazily, why do they do so? Even if they are not acting class-consciously, is someone not giving a shit about working a job they hate really an indicator of inherent laziness, or a natural reaction to a cruddy scenario that does not stimulate them in any way, nor seem productive/useful (especially in our service economy)? Is this dislike of their job something to blame in them, or something for us to try to channel?

As far as stupidity goes, there certainly is a genetically-based range of capacities within human intelligence that trends, generally, along a bell curve. Some people simply are more intellectually capable than others. However, I think people being products of our terrible education system, as well as living in a society where poverty obstructs learning in ways that reach beyond the schools themselves, are far more likely culprits to explain mass stupidity. This is an education system that has been highly successful at obfuscating information to fit certain ideological constrictions (nationalism being a major one), obstructing independent critical thought in favor of conformity, overwhelming students with data that is not made in any way relevant to their lives and instead emphasizes rote memorization for arbitrary tests instead of critical engagement, and inculcating a lifelong obedience to figures of positional and institutional authority. That is what you get from the GOOD schools. The bad schools are true nightmares that are usually mired in so much poverty and violence that any sort of development of individual strengths and love for learning and critical thought for students is simply impossible for the vast majority. Again, though, this is systemic- the very stuff we as anarchists and socialists of all stripes are trying to change in order to better ourselves as a species, and to avoid the more negative potentials that seem so overwhelmingly prevalent now.

Don't lose too much hope :cool:. People can be terrible, but they can also be great, if given the chance and the impetus.

[Kukulofori]

As far as stupidity goes, there certainly is a genetically-based range of capacities within human intelligence that trends, generally, along a bell curve. Some people simply are more intellectually capable than others.

I'm going to disagree here. The idea that some people are just better than others is a class myth.

It's just that everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Someone might suck at math, but if you look closer you might find that that same person is excellent at foreign languages. Intelligence is just about the vaguest word I can think of, to the extent that I'm tempted to say it, too, is a myth.

[Dr Mindbender]

ok, first before I ask the question, I believe people in general are stupid and lazy.
Why? Define stupidity? People are moulded by their material circumstances. The education system doesnt engage people's needs, and ostracises those that havent got skills that meet the whims of the free market. For the most part, ordinary people see nothing but abject hopelessness in their situations, which drives them to a state of complacency. That is just an indictment of capitalistic authority, it isnt proletarian 'laziness'.



what keeps the populace working if there is no incentive for them to work? that very question is answered in the communist manifesto, you should read it - ''If it were left to the beourgioise society would have gone to the dogs long ago'' implying that those who recieve most incentive do the least. Personally I see gaping holes in the logic, which is why i prefer to answer this from the technocracy angle. In the current age, we have the ability to mass produce at a greater volume without requiring even a single human hand. The reason this does not happen is the market value of human labour and the need for the capitalist price system to artifically produce scarcity in terms of goods, services as well as jobs. Under abundancy planning, We could remove all humans from the 'repetitive' industries (the shit jobs) and allocate work on the basis of relevance to the workers, so it would be a case of moulding employment to fit the workforce, not the other way round. That in mind, you eliminate the need to reward and punish via incentive because your workforce actually wants to be there.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

I'm going to disagree here. The idea that some people are just better than others is a class myth.

It's just that everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Someone might suck at math, but if you look closer you might find that that same person is excellent at foreign languages. Intelligence is just about the vaguest word I can think of, to the extent that I'm tempted to say it, too, is a myth.

Just to clarify, the stupidity I was talking about in my original post was common sense/street smart. People are amazing in the fact that they can create such technologically advanced things, but when it all boils down to the things they know socially and things that they know about life, they're absolute morons.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

Why? Define stupidity? People are moulded by their material circumstances. The education system doesnt engage people's needs, and ostracises those that havent got skills that meet the whims of the free market. For the most part, ordinary people see nothing but abject hopelessness in their situations, which drives them to a state of complacency. That is just an indictment of capitalistic authority, it isnt proletarian 'laziness'.

that very question is answered in the communist manifesto, you should read it - ''If it were left to the beourgioise society would have gone to the dogs long ago'' implying that those who recieve most incentive do the least. Personally I see gaping holes in the logic, which is why i prefer to answer this from the technocracy angle. In the current age, we have the ability to mass produce at a greater volume without requiring even a single human hand. The reason this does not happen is the market value of human labour and the need for the capitalist price system to artifically produce scarcity in terms of goods, services as well as jobs. Under abundancy planning, We could remove all humans from the 'repetitive' industries (the shit jobs) and allocate work on the basis of relevance to the workers, so it would be a case of moulding employment to fit the workforce, not the other way round. That in mind, you eliminate the need to reward and punish via incentive because your workforce actually wants to be there.

1. see above post, and again it is an extremely general statement. I am not calling specific people stupid and lazy, just as a species.
2. The Communist Manifesto is actually on my reading list, just haven't gotten around to it yet.;)

[Diagoras]

I'm going to disagree here. The idea that some people are just better than others is a class myth.

It's just that everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Someone might suck at math, but if you look closer you might find that that same person is excellent at foreign languages. Intelligence is just about the vaguest word I can think of, to the extent that I'm tempted to say it, too, is a myth.

Well, you are welcome to your opinion, but the notion that disparate mental capacities are a propagandized class myth simply ignores basic neuroscience. I agree that everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, and that classifying "intelligence" along something as limited as just an IQ test spread is not an accurate representation of the varieties of intelligence. However, there are differences in brains between individuals that DO result in objectively greater capacities for cognition in some over others. Just from personal experience, I have taught students with varying degrees of mental retardation, as well as "regular" students. There is a very real range of natural capacity between child prodigies and students that eat their adult diapers while you try and get them to spell their names properly. I did not say that this scientific fact meant that some people are "just better" than others, I just said that it is something that is true. We should not confuse equal rights with equal capacity, talents, or abilities.

...and SHB, thanks for the clarification. I'll respond if I can later.

[mikelepore]

To me, the original question "what keeps the populace working if there is no incentive for them to work?" invites the answer: if there is no incentive for people to work, then it's a tautology, a one-step logical conclusion, that people would therefore not work. So the question must really mean: how do each of you think the human brain operates, such that some things tend to motivate people? I think the answer to that is: we tend to do what we must do, when we know that it's necessary to have a little bit of pain today, so that we can have a lot more pleasure and less pain tomorrow. We perform work for same reason that we go to the dentist. Therefore I'm the kind of socialist who believes that personal and material motives will continue to be necessary in a classless society.

[Skin_HeadBanger]

I'm learning a lot from this one thread, thanks guys!:D

keep it coming!:cool:

[Skin_HeadBanger]

(Sorry everyone, this is long. Many issues to discuss, though.)

The claim that people are "stupid and lazy" is problematic. If that's the nature of humanity, what's the point in trying to improve it? Also, do you mean we are genetically this way, or just this generation of people, brought up under this system?


mainly this generation, greatly in part due to the system.



I would argue that most of the working-class is, in fact, hard-working, and will do what it takes to care for themselves and their families. You would say this is because they are economically coerced into productivity. I would say, instinctually, we want to help and care for our friends and relatives. This is called mutual aid. In "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" Peter Kropotkin argued that mutual aid is just as important to evolution as "survival of the fittest." In biology, this is called mutualism. On a genetic level, it just makes sense to help my relatives and offspring survive, as it increases the likelihood of my genetic material continuing on. Also, being able to take care of yourself and others around you is a sign of health, which is important from a reproductive standpoint. So, it's in our nature to help each other. I wouldn't say we're lazy. Plus, our species is a creative and productive one. As for stupidity, I'd say that's a byproduct of the system we live under.

Even if we do accept that people are "stupid and lazy," though, there is no reason to believe there wouldn't be an incentive to work in a communist or anarchist society, as it would be in the best interests of the individual.

From an anarchist-communist perspective (i.e., non-Marxist), people would come together to decide what is needed in the community, contribute to its production, and in turn, reap what they need to survive (this has been talked about on other threads, perhaps someone can post the links to them?). Society would not be obligated to meet the needs of those that didn't contribute in some way, and might be asked to leave if they are a burden. However, if they don't want to work, and figure out some other arrangement to meet their needs, why is that bad?

Along similar lines, what is so great about work? True, humans are a creative and productive species, but people that create and produce don't necessarily have to "work." In an anarchist-communist society, unnecessary production would be stopped, everyone would contribute to the best of their abilities (100% employment), and the "work" that remained would be retooled to be more efficient and... fun. Hardly like "work" at all! This would drastically reduce the amount of labor per individual needed for their survival, and would allow people more time to produce, create, and be good friends, neighbors, relatives, etc.

Moving on, I'm not sure about the differences between socialism and communism. If those listed above are indeed the differences, it seems that socialism would eventually allow the people that "worked the hardest" to gain an advantage, recreating class society. And what about the people that, for whatever reason, aren't able to work that much, or may not be able to work enough to even keep themselves alive (the handicapped, for instance)? Under anarchist-communism, it is recognized that a handicapped person still has a unique contribution to give to society, and in giving what they can, are entitled to the necessaries of survival, not simply the product of their labor. This is one reason why anarchist-communists reject currency and the wage system.

I agree that a problem with capitalism is that it makes people work more than they want, and that it makes people work at all. This should be voluntary. I would argue that it's already very possible to drastically reduce the amount of time the individual spends at work, with no decrease in the quality of life. Imagine how good we'd all have it if the wealth of the ruling class was expropriated and equally divided, unnecessary production (and most of the service industry) eliminated, and we all (100% employment) contributed what we could to the production of what we decided was needed (as a society/town/neighborhood)? It is imaginable that the workweek would be dramatically reduced tomorrow.

Kijuna, hopefully this outlines a bit for you this issue from an anarchist perspective.

Kwisatz, yes, the end result of communism and anarchism is pretty much the same. Hopefully I was able to lay out what this might look like clearly.

wow, this helped a lot. the whole thing about socialism as described above leading back to a class structure makes a lot of sense, as does the terms of work and elimination of unnecessary production.

remember, I'm kind of new to this whole thing, just attemptin to learn as much as possible about the entire system.