Free Access: What would be the incentives to produce anything at all?
- This topic has 15 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Here is a ludicrous tweet I received and thought it deserved an answer:
"I watched the video. Spends most time explaining the evils of capitalism, but almost none explaining the actual "how" of socialism. I understand what it's supposed to do but not how. Not understanding incentives to produce anything at all."
Yes, this is the kind of question which keeps coming up (along with 'who will clean the sewers in socialism?') and which we need to have replies to. To some extent, we can get away with saying that automation will make production easier in socialism, especially as by that time technology will have advanced so that we get, for example, robot sewer cleaners (if we haven't already got them). But this answer is a bit of a cop-out as it can't take into account all work and doesn't really address the issue of motivation.In capitalism, a lot of 'incentive' to produce comes through coercion, of course – i.e. needing to work to get money to pay for commodities. Our approach tends to be that there won't and can't be any coercion in socialism, as there wouldn't be institutions which could or would coerce people into labour. When we say this, and therefore that all work in socialism would be voluntary, this leads on to 'human nature' arguments in reply – i.e. "people are inherently lazy" or "who would want to do the dirty jobs?". In reply, we can point to the fact that even in capitalism there are plenty of people who do voluntary work, often involving menial or 'dirty' jobs.I don't think we can say that motivation would come just from wanting to help out the community, as motivation is always more personal (selfish?) than that.A more awkward argument against our view is the one that goes "why should someone bother training to be a brain surgeon when this wouldn't give them access to anything more than someone who does a few hours in an office?". Can our reply here be anything different to saying that being a brain surgeon is its own reward? Isn't this a bit glib?
Mike Foster wrote:Yes, this is the kind of question which keeps coming up (along with 'who will clean the sewers in socialism?') and which we need to have replies to.IMHO the party needs a second longer video offering answers to questions from the Introductory video.
Mike Foster wrote:I don't think we can say that motivation would come just from wanting to help out the community, as motivation is always more personal (selfish?) than that.A more awkward argument against our view is the one that goes "why should someone bother training to be a brain surgeon when this wouldn't give them access to anything more than someone who does a few hours in an office?". Can our reply here be anything different to saying that being a brain surgeon is its own reward? Isn't this a bit glib?The usual socialist response to that question of 'why' is 'social estimation'.That is, the 'reward' is 'higher standing' amongst one's peers.This 'reward' can be 'physical', in the form of medals, but most often would be 'ideal', in the form of titles, honours, etc.All societies seem to have these forms of rewards, it's just that within class societies these rewards are tied to non-democratic forms, like property, money, palaces, etc.Within socialism, if one's social group elects one to a position of higher social standing, so that one is seen as 'the best' at some social activity (where 'best' is socially-defined, not having to mean 'winner' or 'most efficient'), then this would satisfy most humans, them being social animals. Even currently, for example, the army uses these forms, like membership of 'elite' regiments (guards, paras, marines, etc.) and awards for valour (VC, DSO, MC, etc.), which give much-sought 'standing' within their social organisation. Members will 'work hard' for these forms of 'social estimation', and even die for them.Being 'lazy' means social death. That's why workers used the method of 'sending scabs to Coventry', to socially isolate those who damage the social interests of the group.The only problem at the moment is that most workers are not taken in by bosses' 'rewards' to them, which usually mean a meaniningless title ('brush manager' for a road sweeper) as an excuse for low pay, but as there is a growth in revolutionary class consciousness, then I think there will be a similar development within social production.Not to develop and use one's abilities, to contribute to our society, will be seen as 'odd'. No-one likes to be pointed at in the street, as being 'odd'.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Vin, we need lots of videos on every aspect of the socialist case.Baby steps
Quote:Yes, this is the kind of question which keeps coming up (along with 'who will clean the sewers in socialism?') and which we need to have replies to.An ignorant red herring argument. Ask a worker engaged in such work and they will tell you they are an important part of public health provision. At least we did so, when I worked there.Of course we had to resort to the strike weapon in order to ensure a monetary recognition of this crucial function by local governments, if not by management.
Vin wrote:Mike Foster wrote:Yes, this is the kind of question which keeps coming up (along with 'who will clean the sewers in socialism?') and which we need to have replies to.IMHO the party needs a second longer video offering answers to questions from the Introductory video.
The party also needs a pamphlet directly dealing with the human nature argument because it is consistently the number 1 objection to socialism. The "Are we prisoners of our genes" pamphlet is good but does not deal with the argument directly in my view which break down into 3 basic assertions: – human beings are inherently lazy- human beings are inherently greedy- human beings are inherently warlike and aggressive We need to deal with each of these claims once and for all – systematically and comprehensively – within a single publication And Vin, in answer to your tweeter, you could point out that most work even under capitalism is UNPAID and the so called grey (non-monetary) economy is larger than the official white and unofficial black money economies combined in terms of hours worked
robbo203 wrote:The party also needs a pamphlet directly dealing with the human nature argument because it is consistently the number 1 objection to socialism.I agree.But with the experience of the Party's twitter and video reaching to all corners, perhaps a video introducing the subjects you mention with a referral to the more in-depth analysis in the pamphlet. This tweeter watched the Intro Video but would he have read a Standard or Pamphlet?
Vin wrote:robbo203 wrote:The party also needs a pamphlet directly dealing with the human nature argument because it is consistently the number 1 objection to socialism.I agree.But with the experience of the Party's twitter and video reaching to all corners, perhaps a video introducing the subjects you mention with a referral to the more in-depth analysis in the pamphlet. This tweeter watched the Intro Video but would he have read a Standard or Pamphlet?
Thats a good point Vin. Cross referencing across different forms of media wpould be very useful
In reply to LBird's point that 'social estimation' will provide an incentive for production in socialism, I think that this will play a part, but perhaps a better way of framing the argument is that higher 'social estimation' will apply to job roles as much as to individuals. For example, 'dirty jobs' won't be seen in the same way in socialism as they are in capitalism. For example, providing personal care to frail people is one of the most important jobs there is, but in capitalism this attracts very low wages and people in these roles are right at the bottom of the corporate ladder. In socialism, such roles would be recognised for their true value in providing comfort and reassurance, so they wouldn't have the poor standing they currently have. This will mean that people will be more motivated to work in those roles. Also, on Robbo203's point about 'human nature' arguments, the positive aspect of this is that it's easy to prove that our 'human nature' is inherently co-operative. Without a drive to work together, there wouldn't be any kind of society at all. So, we could argue more that capitalism frustrates our drive to be co-operative by introducing scarcity, competition, divisions etc.
robbo203 wrote:The party also needs a pamphlet directly dealing with the human nature argument because it is consistently the number 1 objection to socialism. The "Are we prisoners of our genes" pamphlet is good but does not deal with the argument directly in my view which break down into 3 basic assertions: – human beings are inherently lazy- human beings are inherently greedy- human beings are inherently warlike and aggressive We need to deal with each of these claims once and for all – systematically and comprehensively – within a single publication And Vin, in answer to your tweeter, you could point out that most work even under capitalism is UNPAID and the so called grey (non-monetary) economy is larger than the official white and unofficial black money economies combined in terms of hours workedNo doubt you would accept that people can be lazy, greedy and warlike/aggressive; are you suggesting that these attributes – which you assume to be negative – are the result of capitalism alone?
I think some of you – maybe all of you – are misunderstanding this type of objection to the socialist case. Maybe that observation is unfair, as I appreciate this is a methodological discussion and for that purpose, you do have to take comments from the public at face value, but I think you may not be giving the ordinary public enough credit.Within socialism, I would have thought that "incentives" are utterly irrelevant. Incentivisation reflects capitalistic thinking. If we accept that the socialist argument is correct (or at least that socialism is possible), then in socialism there would be no need for incentives. People in a socialist system would live within an entirely different framework of values, even a different cognitive linguistic framework, and though socialism would not be alien to us (and I do not mean to suggest it would be), people within socialism would think about these matters in a fundamentally different way. True, a socialist system is supposed to be entirely voluntary, and if a person does not wish to work, then there would be nobody to compel him, but that observation only scratches the surface. We have to think hermeneutically about terms like 'voluntary', 'democracy' and 'compulsion'. They would have a totally different meaning in a socialist or socialist-type society. The obvious question from the ordinary person unaquainted with the socialist case is: "How will society function, if nobody wishes to work?" or "How will society function if nobody wishes to perform certain types of work?", etc., etc.The question is premised on what I would agree is an erroneous assumption about human nature: that people are inherently lazy, greedy, etc. I agree that this does not hold. I do think there is such a thing as human nature – this is one of the important points in which I differ from socialists – and I think human nature will make socialism difficult, but you are right on the point of immediate relevance: it is wrong to say that human nature is "lazy" or "greedy", since those things are clearly attributes that arise under specific social conditions, and the genetic attributes that cause these behaviours would be expressed differently in a different type of social system. That's obvious.But what is really behind questions of this type is a scepticism based on the glibness of the case being put. 'Voluntary' in a socialist system would not have the meaning that it does under capitalism. I believe in fact that the meanings of a lot of socio-political terminology would be inverted by socialism. The word 'democracy' would come to bear a meaning that we might today associate with 'tyranny'. Most people in socialism would not wish to participate in 'democracy'. When ordinary people hear that socialism would be based on voluntary labour, this conjures up notions that are antithetical to work under capitalism, but employment under capitalism is voluntary, whereas 'voluntary' would either not exist in socialism because the underlying hermeneutic would be redundant, or it might exist to represent a rejection of socialism's totality in favour of a restoration of capitalist social relations.In short, making the socialist case means arguing outside the ken of most people and requires an entirely new language – in my opinion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.