Incentives under communism?

[Lexicus]

You are being exploited. Sure, its not as significant exploitation deal compared to many other jobs or slavery and your working conditions are likely much better than they would have been in the past or in the third-world. But, unless you somehow game the system, you will never be paid as much value as you provide to your company because otherwise they would not be making a profit.

Lets say your job (I’ll be honest I have no idea what your job entails) provides an extra $100,000 profit for the place you work at. You will be paid significantly less than that because otherwise your company won’t make as much money. You might say that you don’t deserve all that money. I think you do.

Sure this is a very simplified example but the principle remains the same. If they paid you as much as you were really worth you would be out of a job.

Don't even bother, this is the same poster who says "oh my retail job was so hard" to disprove his privilege.

 

[Joij21]

Everyone is doomed. Much harm is caused by people acting as if they, unique amongst history, are an end product and use.

Which is why the term has absolutely no value at all @gay_Aleks was just trying to use an emotional ploy that Americans are all doomed, when the joke is on them since we are all doomed....to die...

Hmm, I wonder if there’s a word for one of the significant forces at play causing atomisation and anti-social behaviour. Perhaps a word that starts with c and ends with apitalism?

Bringing evolution into it is weird and incorrect also.

It will eventually shape human evolution by creating artificial selection pressures.

Emotional dismissal to provoke a response and use pathos to convince me the error of my ways and blindly believe capital’s narrative, even though we both know the real truth, but nevertheless the status quo needs some propagandists in order to be maintained.

Then I'm a non institutional propagandist. Grass roots and only informed by my anomie induced by my own life experience to say the things I say. No central cabal of merchants or party is causing me to say what I say, so is it even propaganda? Doesn't propaganda have to be centralized and from an institutional source for it to even be considered so???

 

[Joij21]

Don't even bother, this is the same poster who says "oh my retail job was so hard" to disprove his privilege.

What privelage, the privilege to work retail?

 

[Farm Boy]

Which is why the term has absolutely no value at all

Oh no, I think there's quite a bit of value in getting that perspective right. What a piece of work is man.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Keep things civil and less personal. Thanks.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, I did try. I was not the one to bring high school or whether I am employed or not; merely answering the query of this entire thread, of which we may have lost sight of.

 

[uppi]

You are conflating liberalism/parliamentarianism with democracy which is why you're confused. Few are moaning about democracy per se; many moan that parliamentary "democracy" is not democratic enough. And the solution is economic democracy in one form or another.

And you are conflating economic system with political system. Thanks for pointing out economic democracy. That actually provides an incentive structure and is something to discuss. (Why hasn't it been mentioned on the 50 earlier pages?). But it is only vaguely related to democracy.

This thread has gone through much bad faith arguments, which have made this thread rather hard to read. There has been much, unfortunate, confusion -- at best, though quite often mixed with outright ignorance (c.f the constant braying that the communist side hasn't answered the questions. We have, but these have been handwaved for one reason or another, preferring the specter of history instead of reading. Unfortunate!). Therefore, I would like to answer the questions posited within the very first post, so as to hopefully finally clarify things, and hopefully, make people finally escape the circle of constant arguing about absolutely nothing in particular.

(Just a sidebar, but the taxation question here is effectively a misguided one. Since the state doing the taxation would be, more likely than not, a bourgeois state, this means that the money will likely still circulate in the hands of that same class; with the capitalist state being an unwieldy, but quite efficient middleman -- at least when it comes to redistributing profits, keeping the peace [e.g, assassinating activists, deploying the tanks against indigenous protesters, etc, etc. Could go on for a bit.]. At most, you may get social-democratic scraps, which in the so-called developed world, are being in the process of being destroyed. Ergo, this is a temporary, emergency 'brake' solution. Communists are not interested in those. Therefore, taxation is not socialist at all - it's honestly not even explicitly capitalist, at this point.

A communist solution, as GenM has cottoned on in his post, would be more permanent.)

That all aside. Let us retrace all the way back to post #1.


The issue here is within the word "incentive", at the risk of sounding overtly semantic. I did note in a later, longer (and seemingly ignored, for some reason) post that people usually like to work within a functioning society. This is a rather simple sociological principle that I hope isn't too controversial. How that functioning is derived normally comes from the way needs are satisfied (or, even, produced?). I go into some - hardly exhaustive - details about how this has been done historically.

But let's dismantle the assumptions here a little bit.



Within the thread - and I mean, literally, the entire thread - the unspoken adjective behind every invocation of the word "incentive" is "monetary". How would someone do a thing without a monetary incentive? Perhaps we need to go in deeper. Let's zoom into the word monetary, money. What is money, anyway? This is a seemingly obvious answer: it's the economy, idiot. But that's wrong. Money is the medium in which commodities 'float', so as to speak. It is the universal equivalent and a measure of value. Quick breakdown of these, before I'm persecuted as a jargon-obsessed Marxist. An universal equivalent means that it is what makes a loaf of bread and a watch being equally buyable; they are both, so as to say, on the market, for a sale given a certain quantity of money, but money makes the loaf of bread and the watch on an equal level. A measure of value denotes, simply put, how much labour it is "worth", although not in necessarily direct or accurate ways. Both things point to a simple conclusion: it's the production of the commodities that enlivens money, not vice-versa. Therefore, from that one can see that money is merely a very useful middleman thorough world history but particularly in this epoch of history of exchange.

What communists want is, actually, quite simple. The end of enslaving of human beings to the whim of an exchange mechanism operated by private parties. (The word "enslave" here is often quite literal, even today. Hey, how do you think your coffee makes it to the table?).

But let's get back to the direct example given here. And let me posit a counter question: why not? Imagine if instead of having to be served by a single doctor, who's constantly overworked, you had several doctors (or a dozen or even a hundred!) that could be at disposal for your health at any time. Those who pay attention know that in most countries, the practice of overworking doctors is quite widespread. Since we're now in the land of hypotheticals, would you want to get surgery from a doctor who's being paid one million dollars every day but his (or her!) hands are trembling from amphetamine abuse to stay awake 24/7? Personally, no. However, I hear, this is a free world, so you're open to choose. If you had a hundred doctors working at a janitor's wage but they had good lives, good housing, services as good as any other citizen...would that be really so bad?

This comes, by the way, to a secondary issue here within the thread, the infamous "janitor" question. Who will clean the toilets? Well, I would offer you - and this isn't pithy or trolling at all - an experiment, practical or just in thought. Do not clean your house for the next three weeks. Don't flush your toilet. Don't even do the bare minimum. Do you understand now? A clean house or dwelling is beneficial for health reasons in one's private quarters. Now, do I need to explain to you that maintaining cleanliness in public space is an important job? And that, if done under normal, non-exploitative conditions, can be quite fulfilling, as one feels part of a society? Per Rousseau, is not man a social animal? The core issue of labour is not, in fact, the necessary incentives, but rather, the utter disincentives put in place when one feels overexploited, out of control of what he or she or they do in the workplace. This makes them do the absolutely bare minimum - "quiet quitting" is the most recent made-up term for that - and nothing more. If anything, capitalism is horrifically labour inefficient, as it wastes enormous resources in controlling a worker within every single moment of their work life. Tell me, dear friends, who is benefited by the "incentive" of being monitored how much time it takes for you to piss in a bottle while in an Amazon factory?

[Sidebar two: The whole janitor question, by the way, seems to speak -- but, I'd dare not make such an assertion -- of a certain middle class snobbishness that communists allegedly possess. In some members of this subforum, to be a janitor means you're a subhuman entity that can be made to do so only with the absolute threat of starvation and steel. Like the Morlocks skulking in the undergrounds, shoveling trash. Brr. Horrifying, is it not?]

And for the farmers? Well, they say under socialism, you either work or you starve.

Under enlightened capitalism, you work and starve, and then your produce is covered in bleach by a supermarket manager. Blessed be the free market.

I have spoken, and I hope, sincerely, that this will not be another post that you will deign to ignore on account of some anticommunist obsession, and instead engage in the good faith discussion traditions that this subforum is so beloved by all.

This is a long winded way of saying there are no incentives. Everyone does what they like and maybe we get a functioning society.

I have been too enough shared kitchens at workplaces too see what happens if no one is paid to clean and the only incentive is the personal desire for cleanliness.

 

[Lexicus]

And you are conflating economic system with political system.

My whole argument would be that the division of these two spheres is artificial and that politics and economics cannot be studied independently of the other (hence the term "political economy").

That actually provides an incentive structure and is something to discuss. (Why hasn't it been mentioned on the 50 earlier pages?).

It has, though perhaps not in that exact phrase.

But it is only vaguely related to democracy.

On the contrary it is absolutely central to democracy. Indeed it is the way to ensure that the political democracy (the liberal-parliamentary state) is not overwhelmed and subsumed by economic despotism.

 

[Lexicus]

This is a very nihilistic view. People say communists hate humanity but you're right now erasing essentially all of the accomplishments that have been done thorough history by mutual struggle and cooperation.

One thing on display in this thread is the profoundly pessimistic worldview of the conservatives as compared to the generally more optimistic view of the progressives. It must be very depressing to believe that humanity's Original Sin makes a better world impossible.

 

[Lexicus]

What privelage, the privilege to work retail?

Conservatives think multidimensionally challenge failed

 

[Joij21]

One thing on display in this thread is the profoundly pessimistic worldview of the conservatives as compared to the generally more optimistic view of the progressives. It must be very depressing to believe that humanity's Original Sin makes a better world impossible.

Well that is in essence the fundamental reason why debates over socialism vs. capitalism don't gain traction. Because at the core of the debate is an opinion, an opinion on the true "nature" of humanity, something which we still struggle to empirically answer via science, and so the ultimate question becomes one of opinion. Opinion in debate then is in essence two religions trying to declare themselves to be right while declaring the other wrong and heretical.

You can't change opinions without significant scientific evidence to the contrary, and so the discussion oft descends into one of faith/philosophy. Is man born evil, born neutral, or good?

 

[aelf]

Someone mentioned the conflation of 'incentives' with 'monetary incentives' and I think that gets to the heart of things. Even if you think that humans were always motivated by some sort of profit, that profit doesn't have to be in financial terms (or even in necessarily economic terms). As evidence, we have the whole of pre-capitalist human history, where financial profit was only one things that could motivate much of human activity.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well that is in essence the fundamental reason why debates over socialism vs. capitalism don't gain traction. Because at the core of the debate is an opinion, an opinion on the true "nature" of humanity, something which we still struggle to empirically answer via science, and so the ultimate question becomes one of opinion. Opinion in debate then is in essence two religions trying to declare themselves to be right while declaring the other wrong and heretical.

You can't change opinions without significant scientific evidence to the contrary, and so the discussion oft descends into one of faith/philosophy. Is man born evil, born neutral, or good?

There is nothing called "human nature" beyond the need to eat, breathe and procreate (and the latter is also in doubt). Everything else is created within the social sphere.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh absolutely not. Neurodiversity in the face of shared communal social programming puts paid to that.

 

[uppi]

My whole argument would be that the division of these two spheres is artificial and that politics and economics cannot be studied independently of the other (hence the term "political economy").

There are dependencies, of course. But my argument would be that you need to isolate those to be productive. If the scope of what you are studying and/or discussing gets too big, you never get anywhere. Yes, at some points you need to step back and look a the whole picture, but the real work gets done when you figure out the details of a specific problem

On the contrary it is absolutely central to democracy. Indeed it is the way to ensure that the political democracy (the liberal-parliamentary state) is not overwhelmed and subsumed by economic despotism.

I don't see any indication that it is the only path and I tend to get skeptical when someone claims that they know the one true path.

Also, economic democracy needs to reduce liberalism to work. That may be desired, but you would hardly preserve the liberal state with it.

 

[Lexicus]

Human nature exists, just not in the way reactionaries like to invoke it as a political argument. Conservatives have been claiming that their particular society's destructive hierarchy and injustice is timeless and natural for millennia. It's all stupid.

 

[Joij21]

There is nothing called "human nature" beyond the need to eat, breathe and procreate (and the latter is also in doubt). Everything else is created within the social sphere.

If you can't procreate you go extinct, plain and simple. Immortality is not realistic at this juncture in time, and even if it were, accidental death will inevitably befall you statistically speaking. Invincibility may well be beyond possibility per the laws of thermodynamics.

As evidence, we have the whole of pre-capitalist human history, where financial profit was only one things that could motivate much of human activity.

Yes like wars of religion, honour killings, conquering and imperializing foreign land so as to proclaim glory and pride over one's rivals, enslaving others for sexually exploitative reasons, etc.

 

[Lexicus]

There are dependencies, of course. But my argument would be that you need to isolate those to be productive. If the scope of what you are studying and/or discussing gets too big, you never get anywhere. Yes, at some points you need to step back and look a the whole picture, but the real work gets done when you figure out the details of a specific problem

It's not just that there are dependencies. The "economic sphere" is entirely constituted by the political sphere. The whole idea that there is even a separate thing called the "economy" is a pecularity of particular political arrangements (which we usually call "liberalism" or "laissez-faire") which arose in Europe (first and most in England) in the 18th century.

I don't see any indication that it is the only path and I tend to get skeptical when someone claims that they know the one true path.

Also, economic democracy needs to reduce liberalism to work. That may be desired, but you would hardly preserve the liberal state with it.

The term "economic democracy" is itself an umbrella term that can refer to many different specific approaches. Relatedly, while the liberal state would not be able to exist under some conceptions of economic democracy, other conceptions are perfectly compatible with it. An example that might be useful to think about is the abolition of slavery in the US. Did this massive confiscation of property at gunpoint mean the end of the liberal state in America? The slavers would say so but most of us don't agree.

 

[Joij21]

On the subject of debate in general but also specifically the one pertaining to socialism vs. capitalism and the various political strategies that can be used therein, plus the real reasons for debate and why it is utilized despite being seen as drivel by the non-Machiavellian majority.

The goal of debate is not to convince your opponent whom you are debating to switch sides to your opinion, rather it is to convince the audience that is watching the debate to be convinced that your argumentation and therefore opinion is better than the opponent.

However rather than the general audience, which will likely be divided between differing fan groups cheering for their own side and jeering against the other, the task of the debate is to mass convert those neutrals and apoliticals who may be there sprinkled (albeit very sparsely compared to the common crowd) among the audience.

The debate is further enhanced in its mass conversion of unopinionated peoples if it is recorded and/or televised/livestreamed. Thus the argumentation between the sides of the debate can now be seen and distributed for a greater more generalized audience, further enhanced if the debate is made to go viral through various social media platforms.

In this current age your own stans who attend the debate can even deceptively record through their phones (or simply take the full official livestream), then edit and create a compilation of the debate showing your "best pwns" which make your opponent seem like they "lost" the debate. Furthermore the compilation will be much shorter (likely a few minutes rather than several hours) for the much shorter attention spans of such unopinionated peoples which peruse these social media sites and who refuse to sit down and watch the full debate in it's entirety.

In an internet forum style debate (that is not done in person but simply through walls of text) the goal similarly is not to convince one's own registered forum posters but instead to ensnare and convince those persons known as "lurkers" who are unregistered persons reading the discussions & debates but not actively participating in them and are therefore more likely to be apolitical or on the fence (which means they are ripe to conversion if they believe one side adequately pwned the other side, joining the ingroup of the so called "victor")

 

[Zardnaar]

One thing on display in this thread is the profoundly pessimistic worldview of the conservatives as compared to the generally more optimistic view of the progressives. It must be very depressing to believe that humanity's Original Sin makes a better world impossible.

We're only conservatives to the Communist Clownshoes Brigades lol. More Social Democratic myself. Basically I don't believe my views should be enforced on others via murder and theft.

If you can't convince enough people to vote your way the odds of winning a revolution are slim to none and revolutions usually fail and make things worse (counter revolutions, civil wars, destruction of state institutions, foreign intervention etc).

So basically social democratic if you can make that work and people want to transition to socialism. If they're happy with Social Democracy stick with that.

Things like coffee one can pass laws eg you can only import via ethically sourced suppliers or countries with decent human rights records and institutions to enforce them.