Motivating People To Work

[Jimmie Higgins]

Correct. Now we're getting somewhere. (But note that one of your comrades imagines there will be no work ... whatever.) I want to "work" in the air conditioning, writing mystery novels and instruction manuals for X-boxes, and you want to study Chinese and bake bread. Nobody wants to pick tomatoes in the hot sun.

There will still be production, but I think most comrades here would agree that ultimately a worker's society would want to get rid of as much shit work as possible as fast as possible.

Work hours for jobs that people don't want can be cut - I mean does anyone on earth really want to be a telemarketer? No, get rid of thoes jobs because a rational system will not need to call old people in order to try and swindle them out of money.

Cutting jobs happens in capitalism all the time when demand goes down (or even if demand is still high, but it's more prfitable to do something else) or automation is introduced. But in capitalism increasing production destroys the lives of workers and only makes profits for the owners (until their competators gain the same technology and then the rate of profit falls). In a democratic mode of production, automation means - great we can make the same ammount of widgets without having to stand at an assembly line so workers can still benefit from that increased production while using their labor for other jobs or that saved time on other interests.

But the tomatoes are ripening fast. Somebody picks them or they rot and we starve. Now what?

Good example. I like tomatoes and since everyone needs to eat, there a real incentive to do food production.

As it is currently, day-laborers and migrants do the manual labor of harvests - it's seasonal. So in capitalism, these people are brought in, exploited and tossed aside. In a rational society where production was decided democratically, people could work this shit manual work only when it is necessarily and then work other more fulfilling jobs not during the harvest season.

Imagine if you were on a island with a bunch of survivors - what makes sense, forcing 3 survivors to work all the time as manual labor or to switch things up so that the necessary buy shit jobs get done but the rest of the time people's skills and talents can be put to better use or their own personal use.

I say that if the public (the market) doesn't like my books and there is nothing else for me to do, that I should go and do the picking or something equally beneficial to the community.

So Van Gough should have been forced to become a day-laborer? What about rich people with trust funds who don't have to work like Sofia Coppla - she gets to just keep making crap movie after crap movie that no one likes but I don't think I'll ever see her picking tomatoes.

Arts and writing and all sorts of other things in society can only exist when there is a surplus and some people don't have to work and can develop their skills instead. How many potential Einsteins or Chaplins just weren't in the right place at the right time and never had the chance to develop their craft and skills and knowledge because they had to spend their most productive years working soul-crushing jobs?

Lets work together so that everyone can have free and ongoing education as they desire and the free time to spend how they please while still getting things done.

Hearing some capitalist apologists talk, I'd imagine that if I went into their homes I would see one child spending 8 hours a day every day washing the car, their wife only doing the dishes all the time, the husband mowing the lawn every day. I mean, most families just have everyone chip in so that you don't have to spend all the time just doing laundry and shit. Then once the chores are done, you go on to spend your time doing what you want.

It seems to me that either a dictator, a bureaucracy, or the market should decide whether I stay home and write or get to picking. Which of those sound best to you? Is there a 4th alternative?

Um, democracy and collective decision making.

Yes, I suppose that would be "bureaucracy" but not in the sense of the undemocratic and unaccountable bureaucracy we see in business and capitalist and state-capitalist governments.

[RGacky3]

Well in a Capitalist society, people are motivated to work, but NOT motivated to care for societies needs, they are motived out of survival to care for the wants of the rich (who control the capital and write their checks), also their only motivation is for the check, their work is'nt theres, its someone elses, so that puts down some motivation.

I'll answer the OPs question first with an example, Norway, you do not need to work here, you could live off the state if you really wanted too, however Norway has something like a 2% unemployment and one of the most productive worker force in western europe ... Go figure.

Also, in a communist society everyone is essencially working for themselves, in association with other people, so their motivation to work is out of their own needs and wants, which also tie into the needs and wants of the community.

Heres another example, a really simple one, what motivation is there for people to take out the trash? No one pays them, the motivation is to have a clean home, its as simple as that, its kind of the samething.

The fact is in Catonlina during the Anarchist period the anarchist territories were more productive than the republican and fascist territories, without a hiarchy, again, go figure.

[Bud Struggle]

I'll answer the OPs question first with an example, Norway, you do not need to work here, you could live off the state if you really wanted too, however Norway has something like a 2% unemployment and one of the most productive worker force in western europe ... Go figure.

And so why bother to have your "Revolution?" Social Democracy has done the job.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I will copy and paste something I wrote in reply to a similar question in another thread:

In a world where everyone makes the same wage, what incentive is there to work hard?

Who said anything about a world where everyone makes the same wage?

There are two kinds of societies that people on this forum may support. The standard names for them are socialism and communism; Marxists believe that we need socialism first and communism later, after technology has developed sufficiently, and anarchists believe that we can move straight to communism right away. (note: this is an extremely simplified account of the issue)

Socialism is usually seen as a kind of society where work is the only source of income (in other words, there is no profit, interest or rent), and where some democratically elected body - which may or may not be the state - runs a planned economy for the good of all. It is also supposed to be a highly egalitarian society, but not perfectly egalitarian. People who do more work still receive higher pay. However, since your pay depends entirely on your work, differences in wealth would be very small compared to what we have now. Think about it: It's not often that you find a person who can work twice as hard as another. Under socialism, the highest income may be three or four or five times larger than the smallest income. But under capitalism, the highest income is hundreds of times larger than the lowest income (and this is due to profits, not work - but that's another story).

Communism is usually seen as a more communal kind of society, which goes one step further. It does not only abolish profit, interest and rent, but also money itself. So it makes no sense to talk about a person's "wage" or "pay" in communism. The principle of distribution is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". People are expected to work to the best of their abilities, and in return they can take whatever they need from a common pool of products.

Won't this lead to people working below their abilities? Only if they don't like their work. In capitalism, we spend part of our lives doing stuff we don't like ("work"), so that we can spend the rest of the time doing stuff we do like ("fun"). One of the goals of communism is to combine work and fun, so that people work because they like it - or at least because they have nothing better to do. Jobs that cannot be made enjoyable should be eliminated by having them done automatically by machines (this is one of the reasons why Marxists believe that it will take some time before we can reach communism).

Also, notice that the hardest jobs in capitalism are often the lowest paid. Some people ask, "who will clean toilets if you don't offer higher wages for such a hard, unpleasant job?" To this, I answer, "capitalism gives the lowest possible wages to people who clean toilets, and yet the job still gets done."

[RGacky3]

And so why bother to have your "Revolution?" Social Democracy has done the job.

it has'nt got the job done, also social democracy is'nt sustainable in the long run.

[SavagePostModern]

Because despite what you think, most people want to contribute to make their society better - plus yes quite simply work would be fun?

Why shouldn't work be fun, if you're doing what you want to do?

I don't know what this crap about "abolishing work" is but it's nothing to do with communism. Work will always need to be done by someone, to some level, sure we would put machines in place to automate as much as possible (probably a lot more than is currently done now), but ultimately there will always be some need for workers of some kind.

Plus, good and flexible work that didn't exist before should go up by far, the traditional job of being a policeman for instance, can be replaced with communities patrolling themselves with people everyone trusts. Taking turns in doing that and other things could be possible with community agreements, the whole thing will be flexible and not based on how much 'value' your labour is worth.

What are you going to do? Are you going to have everybody having a equal income and sense of worth or value in this system of yours?

[SavagePostModern]

simply our attitudes towards work and how we define work itself will change. Without the limits put in place by scarcity planning, there will be an onus to develop abundancy planning means never realised under capitalism. Such bounds forward will enable us to remove humans from the fields of work classed as 'bad jobs'.

In what way would it change?

[SavagePostModern]

I'll pass.

You can't honestly believe that. Capitalists live to determine "what the proletariat wants."
[FONT=Verdana]The best selling items on the Internet include books, cds, DVDs,[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]videos, toys, games, electronics, camera & photo, software, kitchen &[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]houseware, outdoor living, and tools. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana]Capitalists produce it. Consumers buy it. You may have better luck [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana]convincing me that capitalists manipulate tastes. Is that what you mean?[/FONT]

Capitalism like that of the government only benefits the upper classes.

I suppose the next thing you will say is that capitalism somehow benefits the lower classes.

[SavagePostModern]

I will copy and paste something I wrote in reply to a similar question in another thread:


Who said anything about a world where everyone makes the same wage?

There are two kinds of societies that people on this forum may support. The standard names for them are socialism and communism; Marxists believe that we need socialism first and communism later, after technology has developed sufficiently, and anarchists believe that we can move straight to communism right away. (note: this is an extremely simplified account of the issue)

Socialism is usually seen as a kind of society where work is the only source of income (in other words, there is no profit, interest or rent), and where some democratically elected body - which may or may not be the state - runs a planned economy for the good of all. It is also supposed to be a highly egalitarian society, but not perfectly egalitarian. People who do more work still receive higher pay. However, since your pay depends entirely on your work, differences in wealth would be very small compared to what we have now. Think about it: It's not often that you find a person who can work twice as hard as another. Under socialism, the highest income may be three or four or five times larger than the smallest income. But under capitalism, the highest income is hundreds of times larger than the lowest income (and this is due to profits, not work - but that's another story).

Communism is usually seen as a more communal kind of society, which goes one step further. It does not only abolish profit, interest and rent, but also money itself. So it makes no sense to talk about a person's "wage" or "pay" in communism. The principle of distribution is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". People are expected to work to the best of their abilities, and in return they can take whatever they need from a common pool of products.

Won't this lead to people working below their abilities? Only if they don't like their work. In capitalism, we spend part of our lives doing stuff we don't like ("work"), so that we can spend the rest of the time doing stuff we do like ("fun"). One of the goals of communism is to combine work and fun, so that people work because they like it - or at least because they have nothing better to do. Jobs that cannot be made enjoyable should be eliminated by having them done automatically by machines (this is one of the reasons why Marxists believe that it will take some time before we can reach communism).

Also, notice that the hardest jobs in capitalism are often the lowest paid. Some people ask, "who will clean toilets if you don't offer higher wages for such a hard, unpleasant job?" To this, I answer, "capitalism gives the lowest possible wages to people who clean toilets, and yet the job still gets done."

Won't this lead to people working below their abilities? Only if they don't like their work.

Then you might as well get ready to have no menial labors jobs in your ideal perfect society considering nobody likes doing them where most menial labor jobs are done by people forced into them by personal necessity and poverty.

I don't think people really quite understand just how much involuntary servitude exists in this globalized civilization of ours.

Also, notice that the hardest jobs in capitalism are often the lowest paid. Some people ask, "who will clean toilets if you don't offer higher wages for such a hard, unpleasant job?" To this, I answer, "capitalism gives the lowest possible wages to people who clean toilets, and yet the job still gets done."

So what's your solution?

[Gravedigger01]

Since in a communist society everyone will be taken care of how will you motivate people to work? Since there is no rewards like money and so on how will you get people to work other then ask them to?

I'm quite sure they have money under Communism

[Kronos]

[FONT=Verdana]Capitalists produce it. Consumers buy it. You may have better luck
convincing me that capitalists manipulate tastes. Is that what you mean?[/FONT]

Capitalists don't 'produce' anything. Workers produce. Capitalists merely 'invest'. Capitalist take X amount of money, buys some means of production, pays workers to use those means of production to produce, sells what is produced, and makes a 'profit', which is what is left after covering expenses- overhead, wages, taxes, etc.

That is basic capitalist economics 101. Please, capitalists, learn how your own system works. Or, if you know how it works, don't misinterpret it on purpose because understanding how you are technically an economic parasite has caused an unwanted shift in your moral compass, and some hope that lying about it will eventually fool even yourself.

The manipulation of tastes is a disaster of the same magnitude as the system itself. Advertisement schemes play off of consumer alienation, estrangement and isolation. If society wasn't so suspicious of everyone, market advertisement schemes wouldn't be able to sell consumers 'identities' through commodities 'imbued with metaphysical niceties' (paraphrasing Marx). Without this false ideological 'virus' playing on the psychology of consumers, everyone would realize suddenly that a Corvette is just a hunk of metal....that Axe body spray does not make you a man.....that big hair does not make you a musician......that caviar does not make you exquisite....that a diamond ring is a practically useless chunk of pressurized coal.

The impetus of capitalism/consumerism thrives on and requires society to consist of individuals at odds with each other. Without that sense, there is no motivation to buy all the worthless crap capitalists produce with no other intention than getting rich.

[SavagePostModern]

Read you a bedtime story, if you want?



Just because you don't see the value in contributing to your community, it doesn't mean most other people don't in fact history has proven they do.

People want things to be better and are willing to work their end to make it so.

Read you a bedtime story, if you want?

Oh goody....................

My favorite fable and fantasy book is the future utopian promise land written by naive idealists everywhere.

Will you read it to me?

Will you have a fresh batch of milk and cookies afterwards after the bed time story is read?

Just because you don't see the value in contributing to your community,

Civilized communities everywhere have always existed on the basis of social inequality, exploitation, massive oppression, slavery, and disenfranchisement.

Don't tell me about how communities work............

it doesn't mean most other people don't in fact history has proven they do.

History has proven what exactly? That human beings are savage beasts..............

[Kronos]

Will you read it to me?

Here is a better story, SPM, which grandpa Nietzsche used to read to me:

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowledge. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened.

[SavagePostModern]

Kronos said:

There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened.

Agreed.

It will be like nothing happened at all.

[mel]

Kronos said:

Here is a better story, SPM, which grandpa Nietzsche used to read to me:

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowledge. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened.

Agreed.

It will be like nothing happened at all.

How is it justified to take such a "zoomed out" perspective on human life? It seems to me that such a perspective is one which would necessitate some entity which could look at human life in that way. As humans, we can't, at least not and take it fully seriously (though SPM and others certainly try), because at the end of the day the subjective experience of the human condition is much richer than such a perspective can ever hope to describe or account for, and whether it's "objectively" meaningless or short, as humans, we can't ever truly experience our own condition that way.

[trivas7]

They get a bullet to the head if they don't work.

Exactly. Here's a commie that tells the truth.

[ezza_lv]

The working in communism is needed to control the country, if you don't work than you have no rights to call your self a citizen... well people will understand that they have to work for their own good so that the country can stand and grow...

[NecroCommie]

And so why bother to have your "Revolution?" Social Democracy has done the job.

Sorry to go off-topic but I just have to answer to this one.

In a way, social-democracy has achieved some primary goals working class movements have always strived towards. However, in doing so social democratic countries have sacrificed other rights for this, and produced a number of absurdities. Both cons are due to continuous rejecting of class war in social democratic "philosophy".

In their bourgeois view of the average citizen the social democrats are masters of bureucracy and ridiculous paper wars. This is to "avoid abuse of citizen rights" This has resulted in some people being completely alienated from society, because they cannot grasp or handle the vast bureucracy needed to go through everyday life.

Also, class antagonism and exploitation still exists widely, albeit it's secondary effects have been minimized carefuly. There still exist rich and poor, albeit the poor would not be poor anywhere else in the world. This brings us to the next point.

Social democrats while defending their bourgeois idea of "equality" have completely ignored the nefarious nature of capitalist economy. Prizes are sky high, unemployment situation volatile, governent owned corporations hold monopolies, and even the most menial tasks require ridiculous education because of the competition. In a word, the society looks good when in UN statistics, but in real life it is just different, not better.