Incentives under communism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I may, the question is difficult to answer if you are imposing inapplicable conditions; questions such as “how would you pay more to somebody [in a moneyless society?]”

You asked a hypothetical question and I think it’s been answered, but I’ll restate my position: if you have your needs and wants met, I will add under any system, I think there is still the human impulse to provide something of value.

If you are asking what the incentives would be under a socialist system, that is a different question and I‘d say my answer would be much different depending on how you are defining socialism
I don't see it's been answered.

Also I'm saying communist not socialist as socialism is usually mixed w a somewhat free market (often more free than ostensibly more "capitalist" countries).

The closest I've seen to an answer is well you could still have some of the product of your labor (it wouldn't all be shuffled into the main pot) and buy some luxury goods but how is that then a classless society. Of course I received no reply which furthers my view that those who claim that want communism are generally an unserious bunch like incels who claim they want a girlfriend but haven't showered in two weeks.

I agree the incentive to provide value is an innate human drive but so is the drive to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Ironically this one of the major arguments against modern capitalism (you do so much work for your boss but he benefits the most and you go home w peanuts) but I don't see much difference between being exploited by a greedy boss and exploited by a 90% tax rate and a greedy bureaucracy
 
Like lexi already said, the difference between a worker losing their job, and the business owner failing in their venture, is that the owner's material circumstances are safer. It's not a risk in that they'll end up on the streets, compared to all the workers that they lay off when folding the business.
Why and how ?
You are just restating what Lex said, you absolutely haven't answered the quote that specifically ask why it would be the case :
Okay, I might miss something, but how exactly does a business owner who loses his business is any less at a risk than an employee losing his job ? Does being a business owner magically creates a permanent money revenue that sustain you once your business falls ?
 
You are just restating what Lex said, you absolutely haven't answered the quote that specifically ask why it would be the case
If you think I'm not adding anything new, then how else am I supposed to explain it if you are still not getting it?

The business owner is, generally, in the vast majority of cases, not going to end up homeless. The workers can, and the workers do. This is one example of how risk manifests.

This is compounded in the States in particular, where lexi and GenMarshall are from I believe, because it also affects things like healthcare coverage.

For visa workers anywhere, it can also affect their legal status in the country.

tl:dr: business owners already have money. So yes, it won't be magical, but they will have or have had an existing revenue stream to use. Workers will not have that luxury, particularly (in the vast majority of cases) where they're living paycheck to paycheck.
 
Have you ever been in a position where not getting a paycheck or two would result in you living in the street?
Corporate liability shields are one of the fundamental flaws of the design of this country.

"Only the risk I am comfortable with" alongside "too big to fail" and what you are arguing against isn't even capitalism anymore. The deal is broke.
 
The incentives under communism are two very basic human instincts: Humans are social animals, so they want to belong to a group and want that group to succeed. So there is the incentive to be allowed to be part of the group (or in reverse, the fear of being outcast) and the incentive to contribute to the success of the group.

This is very effective at small scale, which is why the smallest groups of people are usually communist. The economics of the ideal family are basically communist: The goal is that the needs of every family member is met (different as they may be) and every family member contributes in a different way. Some contribute more than others, but it is tolerated to some degree, because we value the social bond.

The problem is that this scales very badly, for multiple reasons. The larger the group, the weaker the social bond between all members becomes, so the tolerance of laziness or even destructive behavior becomes weaker. It will also become much harder to judge the needs and abilities of everyone, so it is much harder to tell whether someone gets and contributes their fair share. This means that there is less trust between members and soon there will be a call for controlling instances to ensure fairness and soon you will have different classes of people in the group.

But scaling comes with obvious benefits, because there is much more opportunity for specialization. And if there is competition over limited resources, a much larger group will usually win. So the only way I would see communism working would be in an utopian setting where resources are virtually unlimited and there is no need for any competition. There may be situations in the future where this would apply (for example, colonists settling a new planet would probably start out in a very communist economy). But I think, there will always be some boundary to the available resources, so competition will arise sooner or later.
 
If you think I'm not adding anything new, then how else am I supposed to explain it if you are still not getting it?

The business owner is, generally, in the vast majority of cases, not going to end up homeless. The workers can, and the workers do. This is one example of how risk manifests.

This is compounded in the States in particular, where lexi and GenMarshall are from I believe, because it also affects things like healthcare coverage.

For visa workers anywhere, it can also affect their legal status in the country.

tl:dr: business owners already have money. So yes, it won't be magical, but they will have or have had an existing revenue stream to use. Workers will not have that luxury, particularly (in the vast majority of cases) where they're living paycheck to paycheck.
TBF thats not always true. Often a business founder will go into debt to start their business up and/or even if the business is successful an investor will own much of the business. If they set the business up as a limited liability company their losses are limited but if they are a sole trader or partnership (both of whom can still have employees) they are personally liable for any debts the business runs up, an employee isn't.
 
TBF thats not always true. Often a business founder will go into debt to start their business up and/or even if the business is successful an investor will own much of the business. If they set the business up as a limited liability company their losses are limited but if they are a sole trader or partnership (both of whom can still have employees) they are personally liable for any debts the business runs up, an employee isn't.
We were originally discussing LLCs, so yeah, there will always be exceptions. Generally though, especially under capitalism and how it rewards things like bankruptcy, workers are at far more risk than people tend to consider.

"just get another job"

You and I know how that doesn't work, I think. Not trying to speak for you, I just think you get it.
 
Workers are at risk of losing their job and having to find another which is situationally easier or harder depending upon their personal skills and experience. A small business owner can be out anywhere from a low 5 figures to 6 figures+ in cash, debts for unpaid rent commitments. In addition, the owner may well be stuck both inventory and equipment that is now of much lessor value.

Okay, I might miss something, but how exactly does a business owner who loses his business is any less at a risk than an employee losing his job ? Does being a business owner magically creates a permanent money revenue that sustain you once your business falls ?

I think we are defining risk in a way that is too broad here

Responding to these all together bc I think they all get at the same point. Narrowly defining "risk" as how much money is on the line is silly when business owners can typically absorb these losses without much impact on their actual conditions of life. I don't think I've ever heard of someone being homeless because their new business failed; but people get evicted from their apartments every day after losing their jobs and being unable to make rent. And that's another problem with defining risk narrowly in dollar amount terms, because dollar losses don't affect everyone identically. There is a huge difference, for example, in terms of life consequences, between barely making rent and not making rent. Not having the money to pay for basic expenses and necessities is a much more miserable situation than, say, Eric Trump's multimillion-dollar business venture failing even if Eric is "risking" a lot more money. His "risk" will not affect his life circumstances at all. And obviously I know that most business owners are not as affluent as Eric Trump, but I think the distribution of wealth in the US is such that people starting businesses generally, on average, have more of a cushion of affluence than people who work for a paycheck, particularly people working low-wage jobs and living paycheck to paycheck. And so, again generally speaking, I think that the risk of job loss is more of an existential threat to a worker than a business failing is to an entrepreneur. This isn't a mechanical fact because you have poor people who start businesses and affluent employed people (like me, when I lost my job I moved back with my Boomer parents and took advantage of their generational wealth instead of ending up homeless).

And this is of course not even getting into things that are outright unfair like the fact that business owners can take advantage of bankruptcy law, or that some classes of business owners face no risk of any kind because they'll be bailed out by the government.

Nope, my wife and I have always had one of us working sufficiently to make ends meet. We have been poor making minimum wage but we learned how to live cheaply when we had to.

EDIT: Homelessness was mostly not an issue until the Reagan years and even then it was a much more limited problem. It didn't really take on its current scope until well after my wife and I were well established.

You're a boomer (like my parents) and you grew up in very different economic circumstances, when the US still pursued something close to full employment and good-paying jobs were far more plentiful. Just using a random year but in 1970 the minimum wage waa $1.60/hour, the real value of that in 2023 dollars is $12.04. The federal minimum wage today is $7.25.

Anecdote: my dad had an entry-level job in a cannery when he was around 20 and it paid a wage that would be like $27/hour in 2023 dollars.

If you have never actually run a business that has at least 6 employees and sells products or services (not consulting), you will never understand what it is all about.

Lol clearly you've only ever worked for other people

Y'all really are one-trick ponies ain't ya? I could just as easily say you've never been one missed paycheck away from eviction so you don't know WTH you're talking about either. Please understand I am not saying that it isn't difficult or that a lot of hard work isn't involved in starting and running your own business.

I snipped some of your post here just for readability. If you believe we do have this technical capacity*, why do you think the capitalists of today not applying it themselves? I would think that if it were possible, it would already be in progress.

And now finally the interesting stuff. So first, I am not sure we have the capacity at this moment. I don't know because I don't fully know how much productive force could be freed up by reorganizing society right now in this perfect, hypothetical chess-problem way. My sense is that we probably would still need a socialist form of organization of the economy for some time, to continue developing the productive forces, before we could transition fully to communism. But right now, at this moment, I think we could all be working probably, say, 20 hour weeks instead of 35-40 and still output the same level of socially useful goods and services.

As for why the capitalists today are not unleashing the full capacity of the productive forces, there are many interrelated reasons. Part of the problem is that we are still fundamentally organizing our societies around the hierarchies of European manorialism. A corollary to this is that markets are massively distorted by the tremendous inequality of purchasing power that defines the global economy and basically all national economies as well. But the economy is not organized for maximum efficiency of production, it is organized for maximum efficiency of extraction of financial profit from the productive processes, which in practice leads to very different outcomes than we would see if the economy was organized for maximum efficiency of production, especially when considering that production takes place for sale to a market so grossly distorted not only by massive purchasing power inequality, but also by the externalization of the true costs of economic activities.

Now, finally, I do believe it is in progress. This part is a complicated topic and this post is already long, but suffice it to say I believe it is already in progress. I am not like some of my fellow Communists who see none of their values in operation in the world as it is today.
 
Even if they set the business up as a limited liability, UK banks and other investors will normally insist on a personal guarantee from the entrepreneur.

And if the entrepreneur doesn't have the assets; the banks will press them to get their partner, siblings or parents to guarantee, and then if the business
fails they will call upon all the guarantors to pay up so not only will the entrepreneur be homeless, but so will their partner, siblings, parents.
 
Even if they set the business up as a limited liability, UK banks and other investors will normally insist on a personal guarantee from the entrepreneur.

And if the entrepreneur doesn't have the assets; the banks will press them to get their partner, siblings or parents to guarantee, and then if the business
fails they will call upon all the guarantors to pay up so not only will the entrepreneur be homeless, but so will their partner, siblings, parents.
Yup, which is why it's broke. It only truly protects those who don't need it to.

Fundamental flaw.
 
If you think I'm not adding anything new, then how else am I supposed to explain it if you are still not getting it?
What is there to get ? You just repeat an affirmation that is supported by absolutely nothing as if it were self-evident.
The business owner is, generally, in the vast majority of cases, not going to end up homeless. The workers can, and the workers do. This is one example of how risk manifests.
See, like this. You just repeat the same thing without providing any argument as to how it could be true, when the entire question is about how it can be true.
tl:dr: business owners already have money.
Oh so it's that, I just have to start a business and money will magically appears in my bank account ! Damn, I wonder why not everyone just start a grocery shop then.
Responding to these all together bc I think they all get at the same point. Narrowly defining "risk" as how much money is on the line is silly when business owners can typically absorb these losses without much impact on their actual conditions of life.
By the same magic that make money appears in their bank account as soon as they start a business I guess ?
I don't think I've ever heard of someone being homeless because their new business failed
You might want to get out of your ideological bubble one day then, and realize that the overwhelming majority of "business owners" aren't corporate fatcat that can happily absorb million of losses but random Joe who run a family business and often live within the red.
 
Please understand I am not saying that it isn't difficult or that a lot of hard work isn't involved in starting and running your own business.
You're saying it's easier and less risky than working for someone else and it isnt or else everyone would be doing it

And you constantly reference the ultra wealthy and the dirt poor as consequences of capitalism when they are more consequences of globalism and socialism and loopholes for the very rich.

I probably agree w 90% of your assessment of the problem but not w the solution of a flat society. There will never be one anyway as the powerful find ways to rise to the top in any society (you slay the tyrant you don't end tyranny you just get new tyrants)
 
Of course I received no reply which furthers my view that those who claim that want communism are generally an unserious bunch like incels who claim they want a girlfriend but haven't showered in two weeks.
We all did. We just didn't spell it out because the conclusion is obvious and we figured we didn't have to. All the demonstrative examples of the fact that when ever it was tried in real life the practical implementation is nowhere near the theory should be a dead giveaway. But since they are not allow me to be blunt.

The simple reality is that the reason why ideological communism and practical communism are so different and why practical communists (look at Lenin or Xi or Castro) are so different from their ideological counterpart is because theoretical communism is a stupid, fantastical utopian ideology that can't work in real life. Indeed, some of its underlying premises are literally at odds with what we know about human nature. Such as the fantastical idea that people are not by their nature selfish, greedy and dumb.

But it's a lie that sounds sweet to the dumb and uneducated. The unwashed masses. So it gets used as a propaganda tool by those I would call practical communists who actually have a good idea of how to run a society and make life better for the worker but need a sweet lie to get the unwashed masses on board.

In short, practical communism or socialism are viable political systems using ideological communism as their civic religion. It only makes sense in that context.

Which is why the only people you will see espousing theoretical communism are either dumb or hoping you are.
 
You might want to get out of your ideological bubble one day then, and realize that the overwhelming majority of "business owners" aren't corporate fatcat that can happily absorb million of losses but random Joe who run a family business and often live within the red
And without these people taking risks many more people would truly be unemployed and risking homelessness.
 
Oh so it's that, I just have to start a business and money will magically appears in my bank account ! Damn, I wonder why not everyone just start a grocery shop then.
With an attitude like that, no wonder folks aren't getting anywhere. Good chat.

And without these people taking risks many more people would truly be unemployed and risking homelessness.
Incorrect. A large amount of small and family-run businesses in the UK alone have no employees beyond the person running it.

But I guess Akka won't be asking you for proof for your claims, because the endless cry of "proof" is (as ever) only invoked extremely selectively.
 
Last edited:
With an attitude like that, no wonder folks aren't getting anywhere. Good chat.
It's not like you actually are interested in discussion when the question is TWICE "why would a business owner have more money ?" and you answer TWICE "because he has more money". As every single time, apply your own advice to yourself before delving in lesson-giving.
 
You're saying it's easier and less risky than working for someone else and it isnt or else everyone would be doing it

No, I said specifically that it isn't more risky and you, Hygro and Birdjaguar all responded as if i said it's easier.

By the same magic that make money appears in their bank account as soon as they start a business I guess ?

No, again, because the people who start businesses tend to have more of a cushion of wealth to fall back on if the business fails. Key phrase there being "tend to."

Idk why you bother quoting my post when you evidently don't read it. I even said explicitly that this isn't always the case and that workers also sometimes have a cushion of wealth to fall back on, and gave myself as an example of that!

You might want to get out of your ideological bubble one day then, and realize that the overwhelming majority of "business owners" aren't corporate fatcat that can happily absorb million of losses but random Joe who run a family business and often live within the red.

Again, I explicitly say this in my post. Anyway, some evidence for my position:


The relationship between small business ownership and wealth looms large in the imagination of policymakers and entrepreneurs alike. Indeed, people who own businesses are wealthier than those who do not. In 2019, the median net worth of self-employed families was $380,000—over four times larger than the $90,000 in net worth held by the typical working family (Headd 2021).

To date, most studies have found that small business ownership is concentrated among higher-wealth people prior to starting a business (Evans and Jovanovic 1989; Fairlie and Krashinsky 2012) although some research has found that, after removing the wealthiest entrepreneurs, this might not be true (Hurst and Lusardi 2004).

In this brief we studied the liquid wealth of small business owners as they start new firms, and as they close firms. To do this, we leveraged a unique data set that offers a granular, longitudinal, and high-frequency lens on financial outcomes, both for people and the businesses they own.

Lo and behold,

Our findings are threefold. First, we find that the typical small business owner had higher liquid wealth than wage earners prior to starting a small business. Second, among small business owners, differences in liquid wealth may impact a small business’s ability to grow and, therefore, generate wealth for the owner. Third, small business owners who close their firms tend to have lower liquid wealth than owners whose businesses stay open.
 
We were originally discussing LLCs, so yeah, there will always be exceptions. Generally though, especially under capitalism and how it rewards things like bankruptcy, workers are at far more risk than people tend to consider.

"just get another job"

You and I know how that doesn't work, I think. Not trying to speak for you, I just think you get it.
Oh, yes, there are reasons why as an employee it makes sense to work for somebody unlikely to go bust like the government.
At best you're looking for a new job, at worst the pension fund has disappeared.

But people setting up businesses can get burned badly too.
 
Our findings are threefold. First, we find that the typical small business owner had higher liquid wealth than wage earners prior to starting a small business. Second, among small business owners, differences in liquid wealth may impact a small business’s ability to grow and, therefore, generate wealth for the owner. Third, small business owners who close their firms tend to have lower liquid wealth than owners whose businesses stay open.
Yes, obviously, because it takes investment capital to start a business. If a person does not have enough capital to launch a business, it usually will fail. I spent 8 years teaching an evening course for the SBDC (2006-2014) on writing business plans and launching a new business. The "students" were almost entirely 30-55 year olds who wanted to be independent of bosses, had lost their most recent job or who had a new approach for an old idea. It was mostly a course in how to think about their individual idea and what they needed to understand about business before taking on such a venture. These folks were not rich with buckets of assets to spare. It was one of the most interesting things I have ever done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom