Incentives under communism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, no, They are not coersions. Is a gun being pointed at you head to not eat or have a place to live? Are you being threatened by another person? No. If you cannot get food or a place to live, the onus is on you, not blame it all on capitalism.
But the comparison, in Narz's words, is with an "ideal communist society". People's needs would met.

If capitalism isn't meeting people's needs, that is therefore by design, or at least, an acceptable consequence of said design.

By not meeting these needs, capitalism is setting up a status quo that coerces people into making choices, like getting a job. Or are you telling me that everyone chooses to get a job under capitalism out of the good of their hearts?
Nice dodge on how you are going to prevent the devolution into authoritarianism in communism.
That was never the thread topic, so I don't get how I'm dodging anything?

lol im a hardware engineer who develops computing platforms so a company can have a walled garden software ecosystem. i kinda feel called out.
Haha, well, that's the company's choice. I'll see if I can dig up some examples to show what I mean, but my wife is starting a new job today so in all honesty I might forget.
 
Again, no, They are not coersions. Is a gun being pointed at you head to not eat or have a place to live? Are you being threatened by another person? No.
If you don’t pay rent and you refuse to leave the landlord’s property you better believe that he’s going to call the police and they are going to point guns at your head.
 
If you don’t pay rent and you refuse to leave the landlord’s property you better believe that he’s going to call the police and they are going to point guns at your head.
That's any culture tho. If your peers feel like you're not pulling your weight you will be excommunicated

Not defending the landlord class but I cannot imagine a culture where services (to the community) and benefits (from the community) are completely untethered (unless you're a child or infirm)
 
And pray tell what are the incentives are in the USSR that don't involve a "friendly" visit from the local commissar putting telling you to work in the coal mines under the threat of being thrown into the gulags?
You've played videogames too much.
In USSR people could choose their job. Incentives were not much different from any modern country - money, free apartments, etc.
 
That's any culture tho. If your peers feel like you're not pulling your weight you will be excommunicated
So if you believe that any culture or society has coercion, why is it only a negative for your view of communism? Why is it accepted as part and parcel of capitalism?

Feels like some double standards, before we even get into discussing the coercion itself?

Again, this is stuff you might need to unpack yourself. Case in point:
but I cannot imagine a culture where services (to the community) and benefits (from the community) are completely untethered
This is your limitation, then. You can't imagine such a culture. But you say you're for stuff like UBI?
 
So if you believe that any culture or society has coercion, why is it only a negative for your view of communism?
There you go w the assumptions again. In reality I never said that.

You having the idea that I don't critique capitalism proves the axiom that the eye sees what it brings to seeing (or perhaps some sort of memory problem).

If I wasn't critical of capitalism I wouldn't be curious about alternatives.

If if I was the villain you have in your head (some sort of capitalism fanboy w disingenuous intentions it seems) this thread could still be useful to flesh out answers to the thread question.

Feels like some double standards, before we even get into discussing the coercion itself?
I'm sure it feels that way. We can get ourselves worked up into all sorts of feelings by things that aren't even true, humans are wild that way.

This is your limitation, then. You can't imagine such a culture. But you say you're for stuff like UBI?
Ubi is tricky. I think a very basic Ubi that keeps someone alive but not very comfortably would benefit society. As would free education and vocational training. If you got all that and still were stuck you could still survive but you wouldn't have any excuses as to why you couldn't go further.
 
Last edited:
But the comparison, in Narz's words, is with an "ideal communist society". People's needs would met.
And what incentives are there are in an ideal communist society, amusing no form of authoritarianism is involved? How would I buy things for myself if there is no incentive for an income? How would I buy excludable rivalrous goods (clothing, cars, personal electronics, etc. AKA Private Goods)? How are you going to prevent lazy people from abusing the system? How are you going to maintain and support the infrastructure of society if everyone has cushy jobs? As Valka said in one thread "The people who grew up on TNG and the 'Federation doesn't use money' nonsense can't seem to understand that even the magic replicator takes energy to run, so where does that come from?".
If capitalism isn't meeting people's needs, that is therefore by design, or at least, an acceptable consequence of said design.
This is were I'm going to have to disagree with you heavily because I do not agree with the sentiment that it's an inherent design in capitalism for it to not meeting people's needs. Capitalism may not be a perfect system, nor is communism/socialism a perfect system (Market v. Command Economy). The only compromise that I see that is decent is by way of a mixed economy system that most of the world operates under.
By not meeting these needs, capitalism is setting up a status quo that coerces people into making choices, like getting a job.
It's obvious that were both using very different definition of "coerce". I do not see it that way as it's ultimately up to the individual to make their own choice, not some shadowy cabal.
 
Unlike most of the people on this forum I have worked as a cleaner. Not my favourite job, not one I spent longer in than I had to.
The "incentive" to work as a cleaner was desperation, needing money to provide for myself and my children after my divorce. Arguing that is choice, not coercion is ridiculous.
 
How do I get to the situation you suppose?
I don’t know, that’s a different question as Gorbles said. I don’t believe in the theory, I just have a grasp of what it is.

And what incentives are there are in an ideal communist society, amusing no form of authoritarianism is involved?
Just to restate: the theory posits the end of the state, so the coercive mechanisms you are concerned about would not exist.
 
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. [...]
I don't believe this at all.
Describing the attitude to "not want to work" as laziness is precisely the premise on which the capitalist is firmly grounded.

What I believe, on the other hand, is that in an ant society, a very big portion of the ants do not contribute in any manner to the collective work. (warring, nursing & feeding: link in french)
The ant society works in an incredibly efficient manner still.

So no. Laziness is not an issue to be cured.

Resentment against "lazy people", is certainly a common tool to divide and conquer masses :)
 
If you don’t pay rent and you refuse to leave the landlord’s property you better believe that he’s going to call the police and they are going to point guns at your head.

I would still take that over gulag or Maos system. Homeless probably eat better than a Zek.

USSR did end up offering some Jon's more post gulag. Those jobs were generally in the arctic or closed cities. More money, nicer apartment, acceess to goods etc.

One if the problems was Taxi driver ended up being one of the highest paid jobs in the USSR.
 
Homeless probably eat better than a Zek.
You realise that homeless people sometimes commit crimes in front of the police so they can go to jail i.e somewhere they are guaranteed three meals a day and a roof over their head? You are incorrect.
 
You realise that homeless people sometimes commit crimes in front of the police so they can go to jail i.e somewhere they are guaranteed three meals a day and a roof over their head? You are incorrect.

Death rate in thise gulag was bad in the worst ones.

I don’t see homeless being rounded up and sent to places like Magadan or Vokuta.

They get sent to NYC instead or go to California.

I suggest you do more last few days have really revealed your bias and agenda. False equivalents and outright BS.
 
Death rate in thise gulag was bad in the worst ones.

I don’t see homeless being rounded up and sent to places like Magadan or Vokuta.

They get sent to NYC instead or go to California.

I suggest you do more last few days have really revealed your bias and agenda. False equivalents and outright BS.
POP QUIZ!

Which world leader had more prisoners imprisoned in their prison systems when they ruled their country? Was it…

a) Joesph Stalin
b) Barack Obama

The answer may surprise you.
 
They get sent to NYC instead or go to California.
Also - have you not heard of Rikers Island and the incredibly high levels of inmate deaths and abuse that happens there?
 
Unlike most of the people on this forum I have worked as a cleaner. Not my favourite job, not one I spent longer in than I had to.
The "incentive" to work as a cleaner was desperation, needing money to provide for myself and my children after my divorce. Arguing that is choice, not coercion is ridiculous.
I rather liked cleaning the library. Didn't pay very much or have many hours, eventually not enough to keep me driving around to do it(though it was very much appreciated for a bit), but it was better than Human Resources or government work, in hindsight. Those people just suuuuuucked.

Though, I suppose, in fairness, the library was simply local government instead of state government.
 
According to what I remember from USSR times and what my parents' experience was, the main incentive to work and to live was to get access to things like a Japanese TV set, a pair of German footwear or an American car.

Normally you didn't have access to it, therefore one had to know the winding roads that led to that precious loot.

Other than that it's either escapism in the form of science fiction, news/dreams about life abroad or the most common ubiquitous booze. Depending on the complexity of one's brain, to each their own.
 
You having the idea that I don't critique capitalism
If if I was the villain you have in your head
Uno reverse! Or whatever the card is :D
There you go w the assumptions again. In reality I never said that.
You need to take your own advice.

I never said "you don't criticise capitalism". I was trying to understand why you're holding the "ideal" form of communism to standards you hold no other ideology or society to.

Curiousity isn't that curious if you repeatedly approach it from a hostile angle. You need to be more open and accepting of different paradigms. This thread would've gone a lot better with that, but instead you moved the goalposts yourself from starting in an "ideal communist society" and then repeatedly challenging people to prove how we get to the ideal society in the first place.
Ubi is tricky. I think a very basic Ubi that keeps someone alive but not very comfortably would benefit society. As would free education and vocational training. If you got all that and still were stuck you could still survive but you wouldn't have any excuses as to why you couldn't go further.
"UBI" has "basic" in the name. If you want a "basic UBI", you want a reduced UBI. It doesn't seem to me that you support it, despite often saying that you do?

I'm not framing this as criticism, I'm trying to work out where your line is. Because it's relevant to an ideal communist society, right? If you think society relies on "excuses" not to go further it feels really like you have a fundamental issue with the entire concept of such a utopian concept. You don't think we're fit for it or something?

Like yes, I'm assuming. But I'm trying to understand, so work with me here.

And what incentives are there are in an ideal communist society, amusing no form of authoritarianism is involved?
I answered this a while back, when you first asked.

Hi! Would you like to do this thing?

If I didn't work, I'd still write software. I specialise in tools and processes that help people do their jobs better - and that's a preference I've developed in my spare time (and professionally ofc, but I tend to create things for our clients more there).
How would I buy things for myself if there is no incentive for an income?
I don't really have much experience talking about income-less systems. But if you're simply talking about a society where we still have money (or the like) . . . exactly as we do for luxury goods now?

Am I misunderstanding you?

If I had money, and wanted a piece of artwork, I'd commission it. They could use this money to indulge in whatever they like. If they have no need for money, then the hypothetical spirals further. They could say no. They could offer it for free. They could trade for another service.
It's obvious that were both using very different definition of "coerce". I do not see it that way as it's ultimately up to the individual to make their own choice, not some shadowy cabal.
Coercion is coercion, regardless of the force exerting it.

Have you never been in a no-win position? A situation where your choice can't alter the outcome in the slightest?

I'm not even talking harm reduction. I'm saying "whatever you do, the same effective result happens". Starving to death because you need money to buy the basic amount of food your body needs to survive is the same as being starved to death by any other means. The difference is the shape of the force imposing it.

I feel like this is an "institutional vs. personal" issue at its core. That said, you seem fine with attributing issues to the institution of communism (well, Communism via the USSR or China, but I'm not getting on a tangent there). So maybe it's a bit of not seeing the institutional picture combined with a dislike of the Communist regimes mentioned?
 
I don't believe this at all.
Describing the attitude to "not want to work" as laziness is precisely the premise on which the capitalist is firmly grounded.

What I believe, on the other hand, is that in an ant society, a very big portion of the ants do not contribute in any manner to the collective work. (warring, nursing & feeding: link in french)
The ant society works in an incredibly efficient manner still.

So no. Laziness is not an issue to be cured.

Resentment against "lazy people", is certainly a common tool to divide and conquer masses :)
An ideal system needs ideal people and we don't have them and will not have them. Any economic system will have to accommodate for that. Just like there are smart, creative, energetic, talented people, there are those who are not smart, lazy, greedy, and less talented. Any economic system that does not account for the variation is among people will fail. Most system exploit those differences because there are people who are good at exploiting others for personal gain. So you admit that there are lazy people. I would agree that there are. Should lazy people get the same rewards as those who are hard-working and demonstrate leadership? That is one of many problems which get ignored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom