How would communism reward good work and punish bad work? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15141322
Capitalism often provides incentive for working harder, more efficiently, smartly, more innovation etc. while providing disincentive for the doing the opposite. How would socialism/communism reward people who work harder, more efficiently etc and punish those who work slower, work less, work less efficiently etc?
#15141323
Unthinking Majority wrote:Capitalism often provides incentive for working harder, more efficiently, smartly, more innovation etc. while providing disincentive for the doing the opposite. How would socialism/communism reward people who work harder, more efficiently etc and punish those who work slower, work less, work less efficiently etc?


Those that work slower would get sent to the gulag.
#15141344
I think the notion of a giant potluck would be the best way to conceptualize it, but maybe that's just because of a video I saw the other day:


You're Probably Already A Socialist




It's a bit on the social-democracy side of things, but it's okay overall for what it is.

So basically just de-privatize the means of industrial mass production so that anyone can make anything, get some discussions going about what *should* be made, and leave everything to the *workers* since they're the ones doing the work.

After that everything's basically a potluck, for anything and everything -- I tend to call it the 'communist gift economy'. Here's an illustration:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

Spoiler: show
Image
#15141379
Capitalism is terrible at incentivising valuable work. If it were up to the market everyone would be a corporate lawyer working 80 hour weeks arguing about who invented the rectangle.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 68501.html
#15141386
Unthinking Majority wrote:Capitalism often provides incentive for working harder, more efficiently, smartly, more innovation etc. while providing disincentive for the doing the opposite. How would socialism/communism reward people who work harder, more efficiently etc and punish those who work slower, work less, work less efficiently etc?


On a set wage, where is the incentive to work harder anyway? What difference does it matter to the proletariat if his surplus labor goes to the bourgeois or the state? It isn't human instinct to deliberately work slow. It is actually very boring. Although there is no need to work in haste either, which is normally the reason for inefficiency due to neglect. Volgas for example still exist today and Lada is renowned for their reliability. So the issue of Socialism vs Capitalism was never work rate, which can be illustrated best by the success of the Soviet Union turning itself from shithole status to co-leading superpower... and to some extent can be shown with China today. The issue, which was shown by the Soviet Unions collape, is lack of progress and social function to necessity that comes natural with the invisible hand, but for Socialism has to be artificial. That is to say the state has to prioritise it. And that is why the SU collapsed and China has learnt from their mistakes and are very successful. Let's not forget the SU won the space race and for America to catch up it was a national (ie a state effort) to catch up. So where was the incentive for NASA scientists to do that as there was no profit in moon rocks I wonder?

As for Communism, the incentive is time. That is to say you work to your needs and as there is no profits in over production you don't over produce. If you want to spend your day making 100 chairs that someone can make a 1000, the only person you are punishing is yourself as you are working in your leisure time. And the best illustration on a functioning method of what Communism would look like are the Amish. You can debate their lack of progress in advancement but never their work ethic.
#15141453
I'd like to address the thread's topic / question more directly -- I first need to preface my treatment with the following structure / understanding of what *interests* would be present in a post-capitalist / communist political economy:


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image



What this 'structure' of social production shows is that, even post-capitalism, there would still be somewhat differing interests *by material role*. There would be no *private* interests for endless accumulation, though, which would be the entire *point* of communism.

All people in a post-capitalist / communist society could move through all material-role / interests at various times throughout the day, or they may not. I happen to think that society now has such tremendous powers of material productivity that it really *wouldn't matter* whether people worked for society, or not -- as long as there was a minimal 'critical mass' of participation, automated industrial means of mass production could be activated to keep the machines and conveyor belts moving, to roll off endless amounts of socially necessary goods, for all, free-access and direct-distribution.

So, from the diagram, these main material-roles are: 'infrastructure / raw materials', 'labor', 'administration', and 'consumers'.

'Good work' and 'bad work' -- I'll argue -- could only be defined and understood in the context of 'good policy packages' and 'bad policy packages', for social production, and these various policy packages, per geographic area, per timeframe, would only be decided to be 'good' or 'bad' based on mass aggregated individual daily prioritized rankings (#1, #2, #3, etc.) for that given geographic unit -- like a pre-defined 'locality', by combined consent.

In other words we can take a step back and look to any proposal or policy package for an itemization of the *work roles* required. Maybe Proposal 'A' calls for a total of *1000* liberated-laborers, while Proposal 'B' calls for a total of *800* liberated-laborers. Which is the *better* proposal? I don't know -- it would depend on many other factors, but the point here is that it would be up to those of the *locality* (or greater) to *mass-rank* either Proposal 'A' or Proposal 'B' as higher than the other, over a set period of calendar time, with a pre-existing *deadline* / cut-off agreed-to in advance, to determine the 'winner' policy package if any conflict / overlap was involved.

So since each policy proposal would itemize the *work roles* necessary for the project, we would then have some *standards* regarding societal *expectations* for work roles, and thus for workers. Liberated-workers would still be individuals, and could always opt to not-work if they like, without risking anything, but for those who *do* work, they could become *known* (notoreity), just like today in the career world.

On my own political journey I became *very* concerned with the realistic potential scenario of *social necessity* outstripping the available-and-willing *liberated labor* around to *fulfill* the work required, especially if the work roles happened to be particularly hazardous, difficult, or distasteful. (My go-to is the example of the guy who dons scuba gear to go swimming through the flooded sewers of Mexico City to dislodge garbage clumps that clog the sewers.)

I don't think that this would be an *imminent* concern, though, and I'm certain that the standard communist gift-economy would be sufficient for communism, meaning the fulfillment of people's basic humane needs, worldwide, without exception.

Nonetheless, I developed an entire *treatment*, or approach, to the topic of a post-capitalist / communism political economy, with a model that closely addresses this thread's topic -- here are relevant excerpts:


...Some of the readily apparent *checks-and-balances* dynamics enabled with the labor-credits system are:


- Mass demand, as displayed publicly, per-locality, by the daily mass-aggregated tallied rank positions (#1, #2, #3, etc.), will always be an existing social-pressure, specifically regarding liberated labor contributions to the general social good for varying qualities of public consumption. Such active liberated labor may or may not receive labor credits for their valid efforts, depending on such general *implementation* of circulating labor credits, or not, and the specifics of any active policy package. (Socio-political and material realms vs. individuals)

- Active liberated-labor would control all *ultimate* ('point-of-production') productivity for society, but *not-necessarily-working* people of any intra-voluntary collective 'locality' (or localities) could make and agree-on proposals and final policy packages that contain great *specificity*, as over *exactly* who (which persons) are to be included as active liberated-labor, and also their respective rates of labor credits per hour per discrete work role, and each worker's particular work schedule, as a part of the overall project scheduling. (Consumers vs. liberated-labor)


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338



---


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image



labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338
#15141509
B0ycey wrote:On a set wage, where is the incentive to work harder anyway?

So you won't get fired. When there's 10 resumes on the boss's desk from people he/she has already interviewed for other jobs who are willing to work hard and a current employee is slow, ineffective, or wasting time it's often shape-up or ship-out.

In my government an public employee can't be fired without an official order by the legislature.

Let's not forget the SU won the space race and for America to catch up it was a national (ie a state effort) to catch up. So where was the incentive for NASA scientists to do that as there was no profit in moon rocks I wonder?

Somebody cracked the whip.
#15141510
Unthinking Majority wrote:So you won't get fired. When there's 10 resumes on the boss's desk from people he/she has already interviewed for other jobs who are willing to work hard and a current employee is slow, ineffective, or wasting time it's often shape-up or ship-out.


The only criteria for Socialism is state ownership and the abolition of Private property. You are describing Communism where the incentive is time. Although as I said, it isn't instinctive to do a shit job. If you have to work, you want to pass the time.
#15141512
Capitalism is not perfect, but it is the best we have. This is the most prosperous time in world history. There is not a single socialist nation that has done better than capitalism. They reason socialists do not perform better is that there is no motivation to do better. Those that have memorized the lyrics to the Lennon song "Imagine" are possessed by their ideology.
#15141519
B0ycey wrote:Although as I said, it isn't instinctive to do a shit job. If you have to work, you want to pass the time.


This is an overgeneralization. People pass the time at work all sorts of ways, like going on their smartphones, on internet message boards lol, chatting with coworkers etc
#15141521
Unthinking Majority wrote:China only started making big money through capitalist reforms.

Any developing country needs a healthy mix state guidance/regulation and private sector to be successful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_state


Your mean they started making big money by entering the global market on an export economy. An economy that is by and large state run.

Some people call it a hybrid economy. In many ways it is. But their success isn't down to capitalism and in no way can it be described as Capitalistic country in any regard. Its success is because they actually know what they are doing and have entered into capitalism markets whilst maintaining their own state run system.
#15141523
Unthinking Majority wrote:This is an overgeneralization. People pass the time at work all sorts of ways, like going on their smartphones, on internet message boards lol, chatting with coworkers etc


Perhaps. But they also do their job. And as long as they get paid what difference does it make if it is the state or the bourgeois who pays it? Perhaps I could make the argument that being Capitalism exorts surplus labor from the worker, that is punishing good work? It still isn't the case for what actually happens despite it being true.
Election 2024 Thread

He is going to lose seats. His proposed Capital G[…]

Russia is not acting in any way that is “internat[…]

Russian saint, Russian genius, Russian brightest […]

April 24, Friday While Captain Forbes is raisi[…]