How are you going to motivate the individual to work in a communist society?

...

Sure man. We have an elaborate roadmap to our goal, while you do, what again? Complain about muh state and get killed by fascists?

Such as? You can de-abstract work by giving workers a say in how they work. A cleaner who gets driven into a building, cleans at lightning speed and gets out does not feel any meaning to her work, its mechanical. But a cleaner who knows the people in the building, etc feels meaning to her work.

Can you fucking read?
This means that you can't have communism as long as you have to force people to work. You continue to automate and make work more enjoyable until you can, and then you can have communism.
Using examples from todays society is not an argument, because those kind of jobs are exactly the kind of jobs that will be automated first. Why? Because they are shit jobs, so the workers will want to automate them quicker than cozy jobs.

And It wont fail this time, right?

But capitalist nations have welfare and charities like food banks because of the extreme excess of capitalist production to the point that metric tons of food is given to charities. It seems like you only ever starve in commune.

No. Because we have lots of roadmaps, and stalin couldn't read maps.

Except that the food is not given to foodbanks, it has to be bought. And all non-first world capitalist nation do have starving people, and first world nations also have starving people, you can't even take food out of a dumpster.

Super high-end jobs and topics in math and science that can't be done by machines (This is a proven fact: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem) and require years to just start working.

So you're saying Socialism is literally impossible because you need to have full automation first, even though full automation with all the means of production privately owned by capitalists will likely result in a scenario of total dependence?

are you high or just stupid?

Also, what about super high end jobs and math and science? Scientists and mathematicians dont do it for the money.

No. Socialism does have money. Communism does not. Socialism thus forces people to do work, although it will be less than we do now.

Thats why you collectivise the means of production and build socialism, before you work towards communism.

People generally don't just want to sit around and do nothing all day. Most NEETs are pretty fucking miserable.

And when people do end up sitting around and doing nothing it's not because they want to do that, but because they don't want to do anything else.

If work is done with a sense of solidarity and mutual aid it will instantly be much more bearable, and it's a big step towards the goal of attractive work.

The things we do when we do nothing (video games or other entertainment) all depends on capitalism as well. The whole situation of the NEETs is a product of capitalism. If we really got free the way we view the world and how we make things would completely change, the way we view the products of our collective labour would completely change if instead of a profit-making system it was a real sense of mutual aid that permeates everything.

In the end, if we define work as forced activity then it's necessary to abolish work as such.

How do you make a capitalist think like this? I'm not even ironic. How do you make them realize this?

There is no use in trying to convince the capitalist. Its like convincing the slave owner that slavery is bad. You convince and rally the slaves and the poor, then neutralize anyone who resists the peoples liberation.

There are also capitalists that make a low/mediocre amount of money. I'm refering to them.

unless you mean someone who thinks capitalism is good.

Just ask them, and it goes like this
>of course not, im not lazy
At this point they either puff their chest out in egotistical supremacy pride and say yes, or realise their delusion.

I'm not sure if this is the main problem…
A lot of non-rich capitalists delude themselves into saying that they too, will eventually get rich by the means of capitalism.

Please clarify what you mean with "non-rich capitalists". Do you mean small bussiness owners or people who think capitalism is a-ok?

If its the former, don't bother, they are often the most delusional group of people in society.

But that's wrong.

The USA for example has so much excess food it has to export that demand never meets the supply so they give millions of tons to charity missions annually.

You think those population booms in the third world are possible without that aid? Although Zizek was right about it hurting them but still they are at least giving food and dying of starvation in the nations is rarer than the problems caused by excess like heart disease and obesity.

The only thing capitalism will fall on is its own decadence but people will do anything for it back so it'll be capitalism under a new method over and over again.

But one needs to take a reality check as well. That life under capitalism isn't actually that bad at all, that you have things like food provided to you free of charge in multiple avenues if you must, and that you can have the bourgeois leisure to shitpost on Holla Forums instead of working.

Fuck you are delusional.

To work to eat while not sating either the system's needs (which go beyond direct) use and by extension the "needs" of a select few. All the while, you work to create automative technology that actually serves the purpose of reducing workload instead of just making labor more disciplined by machines into the process of property-related profit.

In a communist society this wouldn't happen because depending on the mechanism of change, workers would control the means of production and would stop jobs, products and services from leaving to other places.

Everyone starves and no one knows whom to blame because everybody was too hungry to work.

What the fuck else are they going to do?

there's no exploitation

you enjoy the full product of your labor

which means vastly reduced labor hours

why is stalin claiming it's not real socialism in that pic when the text concerns the USSR?

And how will you factor in regulations, law, the economy of scale, and the people required to handle these constraints?

Why would you need regulations and laws in a communistic mode of production.

Because mistakes happen, and protocols need to be enforced to assure people's safety. Unless you want parasite polluted tap water from water companies trying to compete for the lowest price without sensible regulations. It's like you're equating the communistic mode of production with ancapistan.

There is no profit motive or competition to push companies to use less safe or dangerous methods in communism though so why would a company say dumb waste into the ocean or rivers like what happens in capitalism?

What I meant is that this happens in an ancapistan, why wouldn't the same automatically be permitted in a communist society?
Would there even be companies to create waste?

It wouldnt be permitted because the workers and community near the factory that would have the possibility to dump waste would not want or allow it to happen

Nico-nico-niii!!

And why do you think absolutely everyone will think this way?

Why would there be no incentive to fix a problem that a community has?

If you're commenting on the open pipe: because it has no noticeable effect on the community…
until shit hits the waters and consequences are severe.

So how would that situation be any different in a capitalistic world?

It would be the same, which is why I'm on neither sides and advocate regulation of such and similar infrastructure.

t. Voroshilov

If there was no noticeable effect of the open pipe on the community then why would they even regulate it in the first place?

Most dangerous/routine labor would be heavily automated. Also the workweek would be at most something like 10 hours. That hardly qualifies as oppressive.

Because of potential ebolashitters or [insert other dangers that could affect millions of people].

That sounds like an incentive that a community would vote to fix regardless of any regulation and a situation that the workers of the factory who are a part of the community would be incentivised to never let happen in the first place.

I don't think that will work as people would be bombarded with thousands of engineering issues that the average person has no knowledge of. Most people aren't even interested in climate change because its results are deferred, similar to our hypothetical.

makes a valid point.

communism isn't just about being somewhat wealthier by getting rid of porky. communism is a society in which the individual wills are no longer in conflict with the collective needs. A society where we no longer have to be always at each others' throats in order to survive.

people will actually want to work. That's the goal anyways. The most tedious of work will be automated (most of it already has been. manufacturing has really transformed as an industry recently as I understand). The rest will be made enjoyable. Work will not itself be "work" in the current sense, but rather an activity which is freely chosen and pursued like any other.

I remember Chomsky in an interview cited a study which suggested that people are more happy to work if they know what they are doing is useful to the community. Sadly I can't find it at the moment. Such a motivation may also be useful though. Hopefully as I said earlier, the worst of work will be automated, but if there is still necessary work remaining, I would imagine that there would at least be some people here and there who would be willing to do such work occasionally for the sense of fulfillment from helping the people around them.

We should be concerned with liberation, not appeasement. Communism is not about earning slightly more, but about being liberated from the destructive forces of capitalism.

The objection is known. "If the existence of each is guaranteed, and if the necessity of earning wages does not compel men to work, nobody will work. Every man will lay the burden of his work on another if he is not forced to do it himself." Let us first remark the incredible levity with which this objection is raised, without taking into consideration that the question is in reality merely to know, on the one hand, whether you effectively obtain by wage-work the results you aim at; and, on the other hand, whether voluntary work is not already more productive to-day than work stimulated by wages….

What is most striking in this levity is that even in capitalist Political Economy you already find a few writers compelled by facts to doubt the axiom put forth by the founders of their science, that the threat of hunger is man's best stimulant for productive work. ….

They fear that without compulsion the masses will not work.

But during our own lifetime have we not heard the same fears expressed twice? By the anti-abolitionists in America before Negro emancipation, and by the Russian nobility before the liberation of the serfs? "Without the whip the Negro will not work," said the anti-abolitionist. "Free from their master's supervision the serfs will leave the fields uncultivated," said the Russian serf-owners. It was the refrain of the French noblemen in 1789, the refrain of the Middle Ages, a refrain as old as the world, and we shall hear it every time there is a question of sweeping away an injustice. And each time actual facts give it the lie. The liberated peasant of 1792 ploughed with a wild energy unknown to his ancestors, the emancipated Negro works more than his fathers, and the Russian peasant, after having honoured the honeymoon of his emancipation by celebrating Fridays as well as Sundays, has taken up work with as much eagerness as his liberation was the more complete. There, where the soil is his, he works desperately; that is the exact word for it. The anti-abolitionist refrain can be of value to slave-owners; as to the slaves themselves, they know what it is worth, as they know its motive.

Moreover, Who but economists taught us that if a wage-earner's work is but indifferent, an intense and productive work is only obtained from a man who sees his wealth increase in proportion to his efforts? All hymns sung in honour of private property can be reduced to this axiom.

For it is remarkable that when economists, wishing to celebrate the blessings of property, show us how an unproductive, marshy, or stony soil is clothed with rich harvests when cultivated by the peasant proprietor, they in nowise prove their thesis in favour of private property. By admitting: that the only guarantee not to be robbed of the fruits of your labour is to possess the instruments of labour–which is true–the economists only prove that man really produces most when he works in freedom, when he has a certain choice in his occupations, when he has no overseer to impede him, and lastly, when he sees his work bringing in a profit to him and to others who work like him, but bringing in nothing to idlers. This is all we can deduct from their argumentation, and we maintain the same ourselves.

I would say most people arnt interested in climate change because the capitalist mode of production keeps them from being able to worry about future problems whether that is because it would decrease profit for the capitalist or the prole has more pressing issues such as being able to afford food or shelter

That might be, but do note it was used to partially argue the engineering problems. These are much more esoteric. They are numerous in our society and require years of study (who knows whether the withering of a concrete column via thermal expansion causes buckling or not? How will workers alleviate the fear of collapse?)
Why would the citizenry not implement a regulatory body in order to delegate this work to specialists?

in socialism, you pay people in goods produced by the state. Not with money and market trade, but with a non-money unit of measurement for work done. Basic goods are guaranteed (either to all people that are employed or all citizens depending on how wealthy the society is) and less basic goods or services are get kept as reward for hard work. Vacation and travel are also tools for rewarding work.
The governments long-term goal under socialism is to automate or otherwise eliminate onerous work (work that isn't enjoyable, or is painful or uncomfortable), and develop a volunteer organizing system and a "basic income" so that eventually, all work is done by people volunteering and the basic income is increased over time to be very high. When all work is done voluntarily because it's enjoyable or because automation technology has made work unnecessary, you have achieved communism.
People perform labor ALL THE TIME voluntarily because it feels good to help others or to produce something. People also put huge amounts of effort into projects, hobbies, and competitions with there peers.
In capitalism, you don't perform labor for free that you could be getting paid for because of the opportunity cost and the need to support yourself.
But if you had a large guaranteed income and didn't need to work to support yourself most people would devote themselves to their passions.
It's not hard to imagine programmers/artists/artisans/etc having competitions to see whos the best, and in the process performing productive labor for society. And If you're the best programmer/scientist/etc you'd be famous and have adoring fans.
People would want to be the best at things for social status and to get laid.
Automation will create a post-work society in the long run anyway, even if communists never take over.

You motivate the modern man with money, which gets food, which lets him live longer and perhaps make offspring. What made a man work when there was no money, no king, no president? What motivated the stone age man?

Well I was mainly going down this line of thought because the initial argument here

Was a refutation to the point made here

well, I'm on your side but I'd say he was still motivated by need.
At the same time, hunting and fishing are fun and enjoyable to do. And anthropological evidence shows many hunter-gatherers would support elders and the disabled in their communities.
So there you go, for most of human history we have performed labor for the benefit of others with no expected material gain, but because the work was enjoyable and we were satisfied by helping others.
Do an MRI scan of someones brain doing a kind thing and someone receiving a monetary reward, I bet the same parts of the brain are lighting up.
The logic of capitalism however, the possibility of all work receiving pay, by earning a wage or selling your produce, eliminates any motivation to work for nothing, wheras you might have happily went about productive labor for the benefit of your tribe beforehand.

Can someone help me understand what's behind ? It seems unfair that, in a society where such little work needs to be done (due to increased automation and correcting wastage of capitalism), people starve if they don't work.

One of the biggest arguments against capitalism is that you're forced to sell your labour to survive. The way that describes it, you still need to give your labour, or else you die. This just doesn't seem fair.

Are there any other people who see still being forced to work under Communism as unfair?

Of course people want to work, for fulfillment - but it's hard to imagine that people would rather be working than, say, learning a new lanugage or doing another hobby. Those things also give fulfillment.

However I also recognise that we can't have a small number of trained workers who work for those who do nothing, beacuse they will become dissatisfied with that job and stop doing it. (However open source software may be a counter-point to this).
So what is the solution? Those who are lazy or have hobbies instead of working, do they die? Or is there welfare of some sort?

If workers work for others, then they are either (1) voluntarily giving away their product or (2) having it taken from them. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I just don't see many people doing (1).

read Mill's On Socialism. seriously. if a liberal bourgeois ideologue can work it out so can you.

read

Yea, for the elite who holds all the automated labor as their private property. You trust they'll be so generous as to just share it?

oh I agree