Incentives under communism?

[Narz]

I feel like incentives under capitalism are easy to understand. The theory that if you work hard and contribute more you get more is easy to understand.

I think most people regardless of where they are on the political spectrum would agree in practice the reality is far from that and highly corrupt.

But I'm not sure how the incentive structure would work in an ideal communist society?

I went to an event called the Communities Conference, two years I went actually (happening rn this weekend in Virginia US my buddy is there). One community gave equal credit for work done there whether washing dishes, minding children or gardening. While that perhaps worked for them I don't see how it would on a societal level.

I wouldn't want to get surgery from someone compensated on a janitorial level for instance.

Obviously incentives are not just money.

Iirc in former ussr if you stood out you got government help to put your skills to good for the glory of the empire.

The ideal person of course wouldn't need personal incentives to serve at their highest capacity but we do not live in a world of ideal persons.

 

[amadeus]

But I'm not sure how the incentive structure would work in an ideal communist society?

I believe the theorized society would not necessitate material incentives as you find them now because these needs would already be fulfilled.

The USSR was a socialist country with paid labor, rented apartments, goods purchased through stores—not close to the attainment of communism.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I remember speaking to a Hungarian academic shortly after Communism fell.
He'd lost "status" as well as having to work as a tour guide and a driver to make ends meet.
Under Soviet-style socialism he said certain things were virtually guaranteed - a job, an apartment, a basic standard of living.
Under capitalism some people were making a lot of money, a lot weren't.
Capitalism in the former Soviet states was very red in tooth and claw in that period.

 

[red_elk]

I wouldn't want to get surgery from someone compensated on a janitorial level for instance.

Janitorial level is a reference to social classes, which won't exist in a communist society. It doesn't mean the compensation will be equal regardless of the job. There can still be money or their equivalent, and hard or skilled work may require less working hours to get same amount of benefits. Communism is not about forcing exact same living standards on everyone, it's about reducing inequality to sensible minimum. And getting rid of exploitation which arises from capitalist mode of production.

Iirc in former ussr if you stood out you got government help to put your skills to good for the glory of the empire.

USSR tend to compensate well for hard work and bad working conditions (far Northern regions, for example). Such that miners, for instance, were often getting paid more than university professors. Some professions were underpaid, such as doctors and teachers.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I am not a super big Communism expert but I will say one thing:

I wouldn't want to get surgery from someone compensated on a janitorial level for instance.

Obviously incentives are not just money.

I mean lots of people become doctors not because they want to get paid loads (although that is almost certainly a part of it) but because they want to be doctors.

A better example of this is people who become teachers or artists even though the pay is terrible.

 

[Narz]

I believe the theorized society would not necessitate material incentives as you find them now because these needs would already be fulfilled.

Right assuming that best case scenario what would incentivize you to be to innovate if it's not gonna elevate you or your family?

A better example of this is people who become teachers or artists even though the pay is terrible

That would be good example of smart socialism, imo. High investment in education and teachers.

But how does one encourage innovation outside of basic roles like health and education?

 

[Gorbles]

I believe the point is that while you can of course encourage anything, the inherent creativity of humanity will fill in or even exceed any previously-mandated or directed work.

We as a species have invented stuff just because we can, time and time again, throughout history.

The problem some people seem to have is "what about the people who don't want to", as though this is some kind of sin.

 

[GenMarshall]

I feel like incentives under capitalism are easy to understand. The theory that if you work hard and contribute more you get more is easy to understand.

But I'm not sure how the incentive structure would work in an ideal communist society?

I honestly don't see any sort of incentives within communism that doesn't involve coercion and devolving into authoritarianism. What sort of incentives are there when there is no money or any medium of exchange involved?

 

[Gorbles]

I honestly don't see any sort of incentives within communism that doesn't involve coercion and devolving into authoritarianism. What sort of incentives are there when there is no money or any medium of exchange involved?

Hi! Would you like to do this?

yes / no / delete as appropriate

 

[AmazonQueen]

I honestly don't see any sort of incentives within communism that doesn't involve coercion and devolving into authoritarianism. What sort of incentives are there when there is no money or any medium of exchange involved?

Status, enjoying the job, altruism.
The odd thing is in capitalist societies we reward the jobs that give the above with good pay.
We rely on coercion, specifically having enough to eat, somewhere to live etc, to get people to do the jobs that don't provide status, aren't enjoyable, don't leave you feeling good about yourself.

 

[EvaDK]

I feel like incentives under capitalism are easy to understand. The theory that if you work hard and contribute more you get more is easy to understand.

I think most people regardless of where they are on the political spectrum would agree in practice the reality is far from that and highly corrupt.

But I'm not sure how the incentive structure would work in an ideal communist society?

No one knows how it would actually work in practice, because we have never experienced a true Communist state. The Soviet Union was a police state in which the workers had no power, hence not meeting the primary characteristic of the ideal Communist ideology.

 

[Farm Boy]

The Hutterites seem to still be carving the longest standing functional example.

 

[MPorciusCatoCivver]

There was hardly any incentive to work besides Stakhanovite hurries and the occasional "whip rush", basically the regional party bureau telling you to make needs met for the five year economic plan or else. Also, "we pretended to work, they pretended to pay us", is a common dictum in former Communist countries.

A lot of declassfied evidence from the harsh Stalin years tells us that Communism relied a lot on slave labor. To build the Transsiberian Railway, to create industry, to build roads. Perhaps 1/4 of all the labor back in the 1930-1945 was slave. Collective farms were inefficient, while industry was efficient only up to a certain point.

That said several amenities were made which increased the efficiency of output for a while.

 

[Birdjaguar]

We are talking people here. People need reasons to do things that can involve personal benefit and group benefit. some people are more hard working than others. Many are lazy. some are more talented than others. There is no way for an economic system to account for human diversity and genetic variance except at a very small scale. Even the Shakers couldn't make it work. Whatever system one puts in place, people will corrupt it for personal benefit. The remedy for that ends up being repression.

 

[Gorbles]

Whatever system one puts in place, people will corrupt it for personal benefit.

How do you corrupt something that requires no coercion, because everybody has their needs met?

You can't without dismantling the system itself, at which point it's no longer the thing it was.

 

[Birdjaguar]

How do you corrupt something that requires no coercion, because everybody has their needs met?

You can't without dismantling the system itself, at which point it's no longer the thing it was.

Every system is coercive to some people. There is no system that will meet the needs of everyone. Every system will have limits on what it finds acceptable worthwhile. Systems are all about boundaries and one size never fits all.

EDIT: "Please sir, I want some more." Oliver Twist

 

[Gorbles]

Every system is coercive to some people. There is no system that will meet the needs of everyone. Every system will have limits on what it finds acceptable worthwhile. Systems are all about boundaries and one size never fits all.

EDIT: "Please sir, I want some more." Oliver Twist

The premise here is a system that does. "it doesn't do that" means your arguments apply to the definition in your head, and not the one here.

 

[Birdjaguar]

But there is no system than one can create that does what you envision. It is entirely theoretical without practical application at scale.

 

[Farm Boy]

The premise sounds like the choir eternal. But even taking it at its full faith and credit, people may sometimes be desperate enough to perform malice for needs. But I'd guess most malice that is performed by people who have ample power to project that malice is performed in the pursuit of wants.

 

[Narz]

How do you corrupt something that requires no coercion, because everybody has their needs met?

But how do we get to everyone getting their needs met?

People's needs getting met implies people doing the work to get those needs met.