Incentives under communism?

[NinjaCow64]

Death rate at Rikers Island: 0.3% (worst year)
Death rate in Soviet gulags: I'll let you look that one up. 5%?, 10%? During widespread famine, 25%?

Not going to pretend that the gulags weren’t Hell on Earth, but I think that Zaardnar significantly downplayed how awful the US prison industrial complex is.

 

[sophie]

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.

Why and in what way would they be ignored under a communist system?

Just because everybody’s basic needs are met and there is no money does not mean that those who work harder and contribute more good to a community wouldn’t be rewarded for the hard work in the form of greater esteem or respect, additional favors, or preferential treatment in access to additional goods or luxury goods.

 

[Gorbles]

An ideal system needs ideal people and we don't have them and will not have them.

I recommend arguing with the scenario laid out for debate in the OP then, instead of objecting to everyone who took the premise as-written

 

[soundjata]

I like the concept of "reward" as it does seem to drive human motivation.

And why would "rewards" be a limited commodity after all?
Do we really need a system that subtly distributes "rewards" in a way 5% of us get 95% of the cake?

I'll put up another analogy:
If society was a brain, then individuals would be neurons.
Neurons, as far as we know, work in a completely distributed way. There is no COO, no doorkeeper
As far as we know. most of the neurons do nothing (useful) at all.
Yet, when the reward comes (say dopamine), it is there (in the blood) for every neuron to get a sip of, regardless of how 'useful' that neuron was.

But we need capitalism to organize human society right?

 

[Farm Boy]

We don't need it to, we've plenty of historical societies that were organized otherwise. There is that whole scope of human history thing whereby articles of faith did indeed hold sway.

 

[soundjata]

Then I would suggest limiting the amount of reward an individual can get as a starter.
Feed the beast no more

Like others have underlined, the system could provide the necessary stuff for free to everyone, while more frivolous stuff could be the reward for working

Or is the seal of sufferance so strong humanity needs to bear it for another 2000 years?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Why and in what way would they be ignored under a communist system?

Just because everybody’s basic needs are met and there is no money does not mean that those who work harder and contribute more good to a community wouldn’t be rewarded for the hard work in the form of greater esteem or respect, additional favors, or preferential treatment in access to additional goods or luxury goods.

I'd like to know how such difference would be accounted for. "...greater esteem or respect, additional favors...." are the building blocks of both social and economic classes.

I recommend arguing with the scenario laid out for debate in the OP then, instead of objecting to everyone who took the premise as-written

Well, the philosophy behind a utopian society is much less interesting because it won't happen. But I can stay away so you don't have to avoid talking about why such systems (including capitalism) can't work as planned.

I like the concept of "reward" as it does seem to drive human motivation.

And why would "rewards" be a limited commodity after all?
Do we really need a system that subtly distributes "rewards" in a way 5% of us get 95% of the cake?

I'll put up another analogy:
If society was a brain, then individuals would be neurons.
Neurons, as far as we know, work in a completely distributed way. There is no COO, no doorkeeper
As far as we know. most of the neurons do nothing (useful) at all.
Yet, when the reward comes (say dopamine), it is there (in the blood) for every neuron to get a sip of, regardless of how 'useful' that neuron was.

But we need capitalism to organize human society right?

Humanity organizes itself naturally according to the current technology and culture of the locale. It is guided by those folks who are deemed "leaders" in a broad sense. For the past 500 years or so capitalism, profit motivation, and globalization have been the the guiding influence for our economics. With that come inequity.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, the philosophy behind a utopian society is much less interesting because it won't happen. But I can stay away so you don't have to avoid talking about why such systems (including capitalism) can't work as planned.

With respect, you believing it won't happen isn't the same thing as it not happening.

Obviously nobody knows the future with any certainty, but for a constructive discussion "it'll never work" is a bit of a non-starter, no? Do you think it helps any part of the discussion move along?

It feels a bit weird saying this to you of all folks, but if you want to talk about why these systems apparently can't work as planned, that sounds like something for its own thread?

Either that or substitute "ideal" for "as ideal as it can be practically be made", if that helps at all. In a positive, not-trying-to-invoke-the-USSR kind of way. Because I still feel the question asked in the OP is worth a thread by itself (this being the thread of course ).

 

[soundjata]

Humanity organizes itself naturally according to the current technology and culture of the locale. It is guided by those folks who are deemed "leaders" in a broad sense. For the past 500 years or so capitalism, profit motivation, and globalization have been the the guiding influence for our economics. With that come inequity.

I do agree with that.
So what do we do now? Keep digging the inequality pit?

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

I have how many died though?

 

[Zardnaar]

Not going to pretend that the gulags weren’t Hell on Earth, but I think that Zaardnar significantly downplayed how awful the US prison industrial complex is.

Not really it's not even a remotely fair comparison to the gulag.

And the gulag wasn't even the worst system. Maos China and Pol Pots Khmer Rouge.

I don't recall Obama killing q in 3 Americans during his reign. Hell Trump is an improvement over Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.

And thats the main flaw with Communism you have to impose it by force which invariably means authoritarian hellscape.

If Communism was such a great idea the masses would be lining up to vote for it.

 

[Narz]

Resentment against "lazy people", is certainly a common tool to divide and conquer masses

I agree mostly w this actually. Corruption will always be a bigger problem than laziness. In fact I would argue that corruption spurns laziness. Like the lying-flat thing in China, the average person knows they can't win in a society like that so there's really no incentive to be especially industrious.

I was trying to understand why you're holding the "ideal" form of communism to standards you hold no other ideology or society to.

Stop trying to understand that and just focus on the subject at hand.

Just because I haven't made a thread on capitalism doesn't mean you can infer my opinion (well you can & do but it gets you confused).

I already have a firm grasp of what I think the issues are with modern capitalism (which IMO is also a misnomer as it generally turns into capitalism for the poor & socialism for the rich (banks, corporate interests rich enough to afford lobbyiest, etc)

Because I'm more curious about it you spin it as an attack. Because I don't accept all arguments wholesale you think I'm hostile. I don't talk & think in the teamsports type of way many do, I'm genuinely curious.

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?

I'm trying to understand the nuts & bolts of how such a system would actually work. I choose incentives but I could equally ask how would corruption be avioded.

Just because everybody’s basic needs are met and there is no money does not mean that those who work harder and contribute more good to a community wouldn’t be rewarded for the hard work in the form of greater esteem or respect, additional favors, or preferential treatment in access to additional goods or luxury goods.

What's to stop such people from infiltrating government (or government from trying to curry favor with them). Who is selling them the luxury goods? If it's a state owned business is this not a conflict of interest?

As far as we know. most of the neurons do nothing (useful) at all.
Yet, when the reward comes (say dopamine), it is there (in the blood) for every neuron to get a sip of, regardless of how 'useful' that neuron was.

That's an odd analogy. Blood doesn't bathe the whole brain equally. If it did brain scans would be useless.

But we need capitalism to organize human society right?

I don't think so altho I think some free-market elements are very useful & offer a country a competitive advantage.

 

[Narz]

I do agree with that.
So what do we do now? Keep digging the inequality pit?

I'm asking you guys that.

It's easier to critique the system you live in than plan a better one but one must try.

 

[Gorbles]

Just because I haven't made a thread on capitalism doesn't mean you can infer my opinion

I didn't. I'm observing behaviour. No demon of yours in my head, etc.

Because I'm more curious about it you spin it as an attack.

Again, I didn't. Noting your obvious opposition to the concept isn't the same thing.

I'm trying to understand the nuts & bolts of how such a system would actually work. I choose incentives but I could equally ask how would corruption be avioded.

Like I've kept saying, it's a very different question. Speculative even. Worth it's own thread. This one was worth its own too, but you can't keep to it.

Why not?

 

[Remorseless1]

It would be good if humanity could come p with some social-economic-cultural system where everyone's basic needs are met. The problem is people -- no matter how egalitarian a society is, there's always jerks that try to manipulate the system in their, and so far in human existence we've always screwed up whatever system there is. Whatever system is proposed needs to take into account the imperfect humans that will be a part of it.

 

[Gorbles]

It would be good if humanity could come p with some social-economic-cultural system where everyone's basic needs are met. The problem is people -- no matter how egalitarian a society is, there's always jerks that try to manipulate the system in their, and so far in human existence we've always screwed up whatever system there is. Whatever system is proposed needs to take into account the imperfect humans that will be a part of it.

The general sticking point for me personally is: an "ideal" society has already accounted for this.

This is why the OP was actually interesting to me. It's why I replied.

I'm not super interested in "how do we get to said ideal society" because it's a discussion that crops up a lot and honestly, nobody ever seems to be convinced of any proposed arguments. It's still worth its own thread, but it's not what the OP was actually asking.

 

[NinjaCow64]

And thats the main flaw with Communism you have to impose it by force which invariably means authoritarian hellscape.

If Communism was such a great idea the masses would be lining up to vote for it.

In the cases where people have voted for Communism, local anti-Communists near consistently follow it up with a violent coup with the implicit or explicit blessing of the United States. How are people meant to honestly vote for Communism when they know that the other side will flip the table if they ever come close to achieving it democratically?

The idea that Capitalism isn’t also maintained through force is a complete myth.

 

[Kaushad]

It would be good if humanity could come p with some social-economic-cultural system where everyone's basic needs are met. The problem is people -- no matter how egalitarian a society is, there's always jerks that try to manipulate the system in their, and so far in human existence we've always screwed up whatever system there is. Whatever system is proposed needs to take into account the imperfect humans that will be a part of it.

That sounds fine, provided that systems aren't given a free pass for the failings of human goodness because:
a. it's the system we already have.
b. it's a system that semantically can't fail to meet everyone's basic needs because that isn't its intended purpose.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Kaushad You've been gone a while, welcome back.

 

[pob]

I think the stumbling block to answering the OP is that some of you have misconceptions about what motivates people: even in a capitalist society, financial reward is not the driving factor that some of you think it is. If you have 10 minutes spare, watch this video from the Royal Society of Arts:

Financial reward or similar things like "special goods" aren't needed if the job is fulfilling in other ways.